Glines nka Hunn v. Glines

Annotate this Case
Glines nka Hunn v. Glines, Case No. 20000054-CA, Filed February 23, 2001 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Leisha M. Glines
nka Leisha M. Hunn,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Melvin E. Glines
aka Melvin E. Rogers,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000054-CA

F I L E D
February 23, 2001
2001 UT App 56
-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki

Attorneys:
Melvin E. Glines, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se
Leisha M. Hunn, Murray, Appellee Pro Se

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from the district court's order on a Verified Petition for Temporary Custody, Child Support and Restraining Order. The order grants temporary custody and support pending determination on the merits of a petition to modify the child custody provisions of the divorce decree.

To the extent appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to (1) rule on his motions, (2) allow him to present witnesses or obtain a medical opinion, or (3) limit the duration of temporary custody, the claims are without merit. The district court has not yet ruled on the merits of the petition to permanently modify nor on appellant's motions. The only order entered thus far by the district court, and the only order at issue in this appeal, was a temporary order to remain in effect until adjudication of the petition to modify. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in entering this temporary order.

Appellant also claims that the district court erred by failing to enter a written order until after expiration of the appeal time. The time for appeal commenced only with the entry of the written order of the district court judge. The assertion that an unsigned minute entry and verbal ruling are final and appealable is incorrect. See, e.g., Gallardo v. Bolinder, 800 P.2d 816, 817 (Utah 1990) (per curiam) (stating an unsigned minute entry is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal). Appellant's notice of appeal was prematurely filed before entry of the final order of the district court judge on the commissioner's recommendation. However, Rule 4(c) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure renders the appeal timely.

Finally, appellant requests this court to modify the divorce decree through this appeal. However, modification of a divorce decree must be pursued through an appropriate petition to modify filed in district court and cannot be considered by this court on appeal from the temporary order. Similarly, the claim that the commissioner wrongfully exercised the jurisdiction reserved to the district court is without merit.

We affirm the order of the district court on the petition for temporary custody, child support, and restraining order.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge