Butterfield v. Butterfield

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Joretta Butterfield,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

James Sherwood Butterfield,

Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20021002-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 6, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 63

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Ronald E. Nehring

Attorneys: David J. Friel, West Valley City, for Appellant

David Paul White, Murray, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 2, 2002, indicating that she was appealing from the trial court's orders issued July 3, 2002, and October 31, 2002. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss at about the same time this court issued a sua sponte notice of consideration for summary dismissal for lack of a final order. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a). Appellant has not responded to either motion.(1)

At the time the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court had not yet ruled on the issue of attorney fees or the issue of rule 11 sanctions. Both issues were pending when the notice of appeal was filed. Because the orders from which Appellant appeals did not resolve all claims of all parties, they are not final orders and cannot be appealed except by granting of a petition for interlocutory appeal. See Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶12, 37 P.3d 1070; ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4, ¶15, 998 P.2d 254. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

It appears, from the record, that the trial court issued a subsequent final order on January 3, 2003, however, no notice of appeal was filed from that order.(2)

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. Based on this decision, this court rescinds its order issued February 7, 2003. This court does not address Appellee's motion to dismiss because it is rendered moot by this decision.

2. A new notice of appeal filed within thirty days of this final order would have rendered the appeal timely.