Wise v. Coates

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Donna Michelle Wise,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Gary L. Coates, Carolyn A. Coates, individually and as Trustees for the Gary L. Coates and Carolyn A. Coates 199 Revocable Trust,
The Gary L. Coates and Carolyn A. Coates Revocable Trust, Joyce C. Rigby, Suzette V. Wynder, Charlotte Christiansen, and Century 21 Central Realty,

Defendants and Appellants.

 MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication)

 Case No. 20040679-CA

 F I L E D (February 3, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 51

 -----

Sixth District, Manti Department

The Honorable K.L. McIff

Attorneys: D. Bruce Oliver, Salt Lake City, for Appellants

Richard L. Musick, Ephraim, for Appellee

 -----

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    This case is before the court on its own motion for summary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Neither party has responded to the motion.

    Appellants' (Coates) notice of appeal simply states that they appeal from the "final judgment and order of the Sixth District Court." Contrary to rule 3(d) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, there is no indication therein as to when the "final judgment and order" was entered, or what order Coates refers to. See Utah R. App. P. 3(d) ("The notice of appeal . . . shall designate the judgment or order, or part thereof, appealed from."). Coates's docketing statement provides that "the final order and judgment [Coates] seeks to have reviewed was entered on or about December 23, 2002." However, this court has already ruled that the December 23, 2002 order was not a final order because issues regarding damages remained outstanding. See Wise v. Coates, 2003 UT App 368 (per curiam).

    The record shows that a hearing was held in regard to damages, the final issue between the parties. The trial court announced its ruling and directed plaintiff's counsel to prepare the final order. Counsel did not prepare findings, conclusions or an order as directed. Therefore, there is still no final judgment or order in this matter.

    As a result, this appeal is barred on jurisdictional grounds. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless the appeal is taken from a final judgment or order. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a); Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97,¶10, 37 P.3d 1070. Because there is no final judgment or order from which Coates may appeal, we must dismiss. See Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶11.

    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the timely filing of a notice of appeal after a final order is entered.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge