Reese v. Citimortgage, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---John Reese, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Citimortgage, Inc., Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20100753-CA F I L E D (December 23, 2010) 2010 UT App 384 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 090917417 The Honorable Denise P. Lindberg Attorneys: Mark R. Gaylord, Melanie J. Vartabedian, and Quinton J. Stephens, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Brian Arnold and Matt Wadsworth, South Ogden, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Thorne, Voros, and Christiansen. PER CURIAM: Citimortgage, Inc. appeals the district court's August 9, 2010 order denying its motion to set aside the default judgment and amending the judgment amount. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice. Generally, "[a]n appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. Indeed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See id. ¶ 8. Pursuant to prior authority, a signed minute entry or order could be considered a final, appealable order so long as it specified with certainty a final determination of the rights of the parties and was susceptible to enforcement. See Dove v. Cude, 710 P.2d 170, 171 (Utah 1985); see also Cannon v. Keller, 692 P.2d 740, 741 (Utah 1984). The Utah Supreme Court has since determined that the framework for analyzing the finality of a minute entry or order for purposes of appeal was unworkable. Consequently, in Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2, 201 P.3d 966, the supreme court held that a minute entry or order contemplated as final by the district court "must explicitly direct that no additional order is necessary." Id. ¶ 32. When the district court does not expressly direct that its order is the final order of the court, rule 7(f)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure requires the prevailing party, or the nonprevailing party when necessary, to prepare and file an order to trigger finality for purposes of appeal. See id. ¶ 30. The August 9, 2010 order does not satisfy the requirements set forth in Giusti. While the district court may have intended the order to be its final order, the district court did not expressly indicate that the order was the final order of the court and that no further order was required. Furthermore, no party prepared a final order as required by rule 7(f)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the order is not final for purposes of appeal, and this court is required to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order. ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge ______________________________ J. Frederic Voros Jr., Judge ______________________________ Michele M. Christiansen, Judge 20100753-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
