3-D Construction v. Maughan

3-D Construction v. Maughan

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

3-D Construction and Development, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Glenn R. Maughan,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040434-CA
 

F I L E D
(July 9, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 238

 

-----

First District, Brigham City Department

The Honorable Ben H. Hadfield

Attorneys: Frank M. Wells, Ogden, for Appellant

Jack C. Helgesen and Keith M. Backman, Ogden, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Maughan seeks to appeal the trial court's partial summary judgment in favor of 3-D Construction and Development, LLC (3D), dissolving most of the mechanics' liens at issue in this case. This matter is before the court on 3D's motion for summary disposition due to lack of jurisdiction. Maughan has filed no response.

Appeals may be taken from "all final orders and judgments." Utah R. App. P. 3(a). Appellate courts do not "have jurisdiction over an appeal unless it is taken from a final judgment, or qualifies for an exception to the final judgment rule."(1) Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97,¶5, 37 P.3d 1070. An order is a final order only if it disposes of the case as to all parties, and "finally dispose[s] of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of the case." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50,¶9, 5 P.3d 649.

The partial summary judgment in favor of 3D is not a final order because it does not dispose of all the parties nor all the issues in the litigation. The consolidated action in the trial court involved multiple parties. The summary judgment disposed only of issues between 3D and Maughan, and did not resolve issues between the other parties.

Additionally, the order expressly reserved issues for trial, and thus, did not "dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of the case." Id. Although the trial court dissolved the liens against almost all of the parcels, it reserved all claims regarding a single parcel because of material facts in dispute for that parcel only. Further, it reserved the issues of attorney fees and damages under the statute. As a result, the order is not final because it leaves additional issues for trial.

Because the order appealed from is not a final order, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely notice of appeal after the entry of a final order.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

1. Maughan has not raised any exception to the final judgment rule in this case, so the rule controls.