Mangum (Morris) v. Mangum

Mangum (Morris) v. Mangum

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Robin Leeanne Mangum (Morris),

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

Daron Irvin Mangum,

Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20030799-CA
 

F I L E D
(December 26, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 442

 

-----

First District, Logan Department

The Honorable Clint S. Judkins

Attorneys: Robin Leeanne Mangum (Morris), Wellsville,

Appellant Pro Se

Lyle W. Hillyard and Brian G. Cannell, Logan,

for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's June 4, 2003 Findings and Order. Appellee moves for summary dismissal, contending that this court does not have jurisdiction because Appellant did not file a notice of appeal from the district court's September 9, 2003 order disposing of his timely motion under rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Although Appellee did not file his motion for summary dismissal within ten days of service of the docketing statement, see Utah R. App. P. 10(a), lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time. See, e.g., Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App 290,¶14, 989 P.2d 491.

Appellant concedes that Appellee filed a timely motion under rule 59 and that the September 9, 2003 order amended the June 4, 2003 Findings and Order. Appellant nevertheless contends that this court has jurisdiction because she appeals portions of the June 4, 2003 Findings and Order that Appellee did not challenge in his rule 59 motion and that the trial court did not amend. An appeal may be taken from a final order or judgment. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a). However, "a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial filed under . . . [rule] 59 suspends the finality of the challenged order or judgment" in its entirety, "rendering a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of such a motion . . . [ineffective] to confer jurisdiction" on this court. Regan v. Blount, 1999 UT App 154,¶4, 978 P.2d 1051 (per curiam) (second alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted). To vest this court with jurisdiction, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the entry of the order disposing of the rule 59 motion. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b); Regan, 1999 UT App 154 at ¶4. Because Appellee filed a timely motion under rule 59, Appellant's notice of appeal from the June 4, 2003 order was ineffective. Further, Appellant did not file a notice of appeal from the September 9, 2003 order disposing of Appellee's rule 59 motion. Therefore, Appellant did not vest this court with jurisdiction. When this court does not have jurisdiction, it must dismiss the appeal. See Regan, 1999 UT App 154 at ¶4.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge