Geddes v. Guyon

Annotate this Case
Geddes v. Guyon. Filed September 23, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Dee R. Geddes,
Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Edwin F. Guyon,
Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990523-CA

F I L E D
September 23, 1999
  1999 UT App 264 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Leslie A. Lewis

Attorneys:
Dee R. Geddes, Ogden, Appellant Pro Se

-----

Before Judges Wilkins, Bench, and Billings.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals an order of the trial court denying as moot his motion to have Martin Manning held in contempt of court.(1) We affirm.

In a situation where "the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants, the case is moot and a court will normally refrain from adjudicating it on the merits." Merhish v. H.A. Folsom & Assoc., 646 P.2d 731, 732 (Utah 1982) (citation omitted); accord Spain v. Stewart, 639 P.2d 166, 168 (Utah 1981). That rule governs this case. Not only was the trial completed and the case dismissed with prejudice, rendering the controversy between appellant and appellee moot, but Mr. Manning in fact appeared, testified and made available the requested documents at trial, rendering appellant's challenge to his failure to appear at court on the vacated trial date moot. The judicial relief requested by appellant, i.e., sanctioning Mr. Manning, cannot affect his rights in the underlying matter, which have been finally resolved. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying as moot appellant's motion to have Mr. Manning held in contempt.

Affirmed.
 
 
 

______________________________
Michael J. Wilkins,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

1. The only issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion. The underlying issues regarding appellant's allegations of malpractice against appellee have been adjudicated and settled previously by the April 23, 1997, order of the trial court dismissing the case with prejudice and by this court's May 29, 1998, memorandum decision affirming the order of dismissal.