Winward v. George

Winward v. George

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----

Cathy Lorraine Winward fka Cathy Lorraine George,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Martin Lynn George,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20040380-CA

F I L E D
(July 29, 2004)

2004 UT App 253

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Leslie A. Lewis

Attorneys: Randy S. Ludlow, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

David J. Friel, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Greenwood.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on Appellee's (Winward) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that no final appealable order has issued. See Utah R. App. P. 10. Winward filed a motion to modify the divorce decree that sought to transfer custody of the parties' two minor children to her.(1)

The order, issued after trial, transferred custody from Appellant (George) to Winward. George seeks review of that order. Winward moves to dismiss on the basis that several issues remain unresolved, including: transportation, insurance issues, and day care. George claims that the order of the trial court resolved the only issue presented at trial, the custody of the parties' two children.

While the trial court retains ongoing jurisdiction in domestic cases and, as a result, several final orders can issue, an appealable order must resolve the controversy then existing between the parties. See Copier v. Copier, 939 P.2d 202, 203-04 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). The petition to modify the divorce decree requested custody transfer and also child support modification and tax exemption status change as a result of transfer of custody. The order issued by the trial court did not resolve the issues of child support modification or tax exemption status and, therefore, is not final and appealable.

Because the order is not final and appealable, this court lacks jurisdiction. Once a court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction, it "retains only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice to a proper appeal filed after the issuance of a final order.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

-----

I DISSENT:

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

1. The custody of the minor child G.G. was not transferred by the court because the child was close to the age of majority. Therefore, the custody of J.G. is the only issue on appeal.