Weinstein v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of Utah

Weinstein v. Bennett

2011 UT App 436, 268 P.3d 198, 698 Utah Adv. Rep. 58, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 435, 2011 WL 6774233

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedDecember 22, 2011

DocketNo. 20110828-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 436 (Weinstein v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weinstein v. Bennett, 2011 UT App 436, 268 P.3d 198, 698 Utah Adv. Rep. 58, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 435, 2011 WL 6774233 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 George Weinstein appeals the district court's order entered on August 18, 2011. [199]*199This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

T 2 Generally, "(aln appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, 19, 5 P.3d 649. Indeed, for an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. 110. The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the cireumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (8) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. 12.

T3 The Utah Supreme Court has determined that a trial court must resolve the amount of attorney fees awardable to a party before the judgment becomes final for purposes of appeal under rule 3 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4, ¶ 15, 998 P.2d 254. This rule serves to prevent piecemeal appeals should a party seek to challenge an award of attorney fees entered after a judgment on the underlying merits. See id. 1 14.

{ 4 The district court has not resolved the outstanding issue of attorney fees, and the matter has been set for a future hearing. Because the August 18, 2011 order does not resolve the issue of attorney fees, the order is not a final, appealable order. See id. 15. Thus, we are required to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. See id.; see also Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649.

{5 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final, appealable order.¹

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 George Weinstein appeals the district court's order entered on August 18, 2011. [199]*199This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

T 2 Generally, "(aln appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, 19, 5 P.3d 649. Indeed, for an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. 110. The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the cireumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (8) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. 12.

T3 The Utah Supreme Court has determined that a trial court must resolve the amount of attorney fees awardable to a party before the judgment becomes final for purposes of appeal under rule 3 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4, ¶ 15, 998 P.2d 254. This rule serves to prevent piecemeal appeals should a party seek to challenge an award of attorney fees entered after a judgment on the underlying merits. See id. 1 14.

{ 4 The district court has not resolved the outstanding issue of attorney fees, and the matter has been set for a future hearing. Because the August 18, 2011 order does not resolve the issue of attorney fees, the order is not a final, appealable order. See id. 15. Thus, we are required to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. See id.; see also Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 8, 5 P.3d 649.

{5 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final, appealable order.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 436, 268 P.3d 198, 698 Utah Adv. Rep. 58, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 435, 2011 WL 6774233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstein-v-bennett-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack