Kirk v. Kirk ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                           IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    ‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐
    Jeffrey Kirk,                                )           PER CURIAM DECISION
    )
    Petitioner and Appellant,             )            Case No. 20120028‐CA
    )
    v.                                           )                   FILED
    )                (March 22, 2012)
    Gail Kirk,                                   )
    )                
    2012 UT App 77
    Respondent and Appellee.              )
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Third District, Salt Lake Department, 044904040
    The Honorable Paul G. Maughan
    Attorneys:      Jeffrey Kirk, Draper, Appellant Pro Se
    Gail Kirk, Draper, Appellee Pro Se
    ‐‐‐‐‐
    Before Judges McHugh, Voros, and Orme.
    ¶1     Jeffrey Kirk appeals the district court’s January 4, 2012 order. This matter is
    before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the
    appeal without prejudice.
    ¶2      Generally, “[a]n appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that
    is not final.” Bradbury v. Valencia, 
    2000 UT 50
    , ¶ 9, 
    5 P.3d 649
    . Indeed, this court lacks
    jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See
    
    id. ¶ 8
    . For an order to be a final, appealable order, the order must dispose of all parties
    or claims to an action. See 
    id. ¶ 9
    . The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are
    where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the circumstances by statute, (2) the appellate
    court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure,
    or (3) the trial court properly certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah
    Rules of Civil Procedure. See 
    id. ¶ 12
    .
    ¶3      The January 4, 2012 order set aside the district court’s prior order granting
    summary judgment. Because the order granting summary judgment was set aside, the
    order does not dispose of all parties or claims to the action. See 
    id. ¶ 9
    . Thus, the order
    is not final for purposes of appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the
    appeal. See Bradbury, 
    2000 UT 50
    , ¶ 15. When this court lacks jurisdiction, we retain
    only the authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian‐Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 
    767 P.2d 569
    , 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).
    ¶4    Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely
    appeal from a final order. Appellee’s request for sanctions is denied.
    ____________________________________
    Carolyn B. McHugh,
    Presiding Judge
    ____________________________________
    J. Frederic Voros Jr.,
    Associate Presiding Judge
    ____________________________________
    Gregory K. Orme, Judge
    20120028‐CA                                   2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20120028-CA

Filed Date: 3/22/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2021