WVC v. ScripterAnnotate this Case
West Valley City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Randall S. Scripter,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20010054-CA
F I L E D
August 16, 2001 2001 UT App 243 -----
Third District, West Valley
The Honorable Terry Christiansen
Randall S. Scripter, West Valley City, Appellant Pro Se
Elliot R. Lawrence, West Valley City, for Appellee
Before Judges Jackson, Davis, and Thorne.
Appellant Randall Scripter appeals a judgment entered after a trial de novo on appeal from a small claims court judgment. This case is before the court on West Valley City's motion for summary disposition.
Utah Code Ann. § 78-6-10(2) (Supp. 2000) provides that no appeal may be taken to this court from the judgment following a trial de novo after a small claim judgment "unless the court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." Otherwise, the judgment of the district court is final and not appealable. The judgment entered by the district court in this case does not contain a ruling on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. Scripter did not order a transcript, so there is no record of an oral ruling on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. It is appellant's duty to include all relevant portions of the transcript in the record on appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 11(e)(2).
Scripter opposes the City's motion to dismiss by contending that a defect in the trial court's jurisdiction may be raised at any time. However, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal unless the prerequisites of section 78-6-10(2) are satisfied. Even assuming that the district court orally ruled that the Utah Legislature properly delegated authority to cities to establish speed limits, as represented by the City, this does not satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite for further appeal. See City of Monticello v. Christensen, 769 P.2d 853, 854 (Utah Ct. App. 1989)(per curiam), aff'd, 788 P.2d 513 (Utah 1990) (construing analogous language as requiring a challenge to a specific statute or ordinance). The judgment of the district court following the trial de novo does not include a ruling on the constitutionality of a specific statute or ordinance, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge -----
I CONCUR IN THE RESULT:
James Z. Davis, Judge