Scott v. Scott

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Lori Naegle Scott,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Russell Scott,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020672-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 22, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 123

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Joseph C. Fratto Jr.

Attorneys: Russell Scott, South Jordan, Appellant Pro Se

Dennis L. Mangrum and Richard S. Nemelka, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition on the bases of lack of jurisdiction and that the issues presented are so insubstantial as to not merit further consideration by this court. See Utah R. App. P. 10. Review of the trial court record reveals that the notice of appeal was filed timely from entry of the trial court's "Decree on Remaining Issues" and, consequently, this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. We, therefore, consider the alternative ground in this court's sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

Appellant's response to this court's motion is largely unintelligible. Appellant seems to argue that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there is no controversy between the parties. This argument is without merit. Appellant sought joint custody of the couple's minor children. At the very least, Appellant sought a level of child support commensurate with joint custody in his "Amended Proposed Parenting Plan and Counterclaim to the Petition to Modify" and "Respondent's Petition for Joint Custody" filed in the trial court. Petitioner's "Verified Petition for Divorce" sought sole custody with visitation for Appellant. Therefore, the trial court clearly had jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section 30-3-16.1 (1998).

Appellant argues that the trial court issued the "Decree on Remaining Issues" without affording him an opportunity to object. Review of the record reveals that Appellant filed a pleading entitled "Failure of Service by Petitioner of Decree on Remaining Issues and Remand for Decree on Remaining Issues From a Court of Competent Jurisdiction." The trial court denied this motion, noting that it contained objections that were expressions of dissatisfaction with the court's ruling regarding the custody of the children. Therefore, Appellant had the opportunity to object and the trial court considered Appellant's objections.

We summarily affirm the ruling of the trial court.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge