Ockey v. Iron Mountain Alliance

Ockey v. Iron Mountain Alliance

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Scott Ockey and Catherine Condas,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

Iron Mountain Alliance, Inc., a Utah corporation; John Lehmer; Iron Mountain Holding Group, L.C.; Iron Associates, LTD; White Pine Associates, Inc.; George Condas; Nick J. Condas; Chris Condas; Ellen Bayas; Alezandra Ockey; John Condas; Susi Lotgis; Marina Condas; Hermione Bayas; Ellen Ockey-Johnson; Keith Kelley; Walt Brett; and Tom Gauld,

Defendants and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030552-CA
 

F I L E D
(December 18, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 437

 

-----

Third District, Park City Department

The Honorable Pat B. Brian

Attorneys: Craig G. Adamson, Eric P. Lee, Craig A. Hoggan, Salt Lake City, for Appellants

Matthew L. Lalli and Timothy B. Schade, Salt Lake City, for Appellee John Lehmer

Michael S. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Iron

Mountain Alliance, Inc.

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for consideration of summary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal is taken from an order that is not final. See Utah R. App. P. 4(a). The trial court reserved the issue of attorney fees. Therefore, the judgment did not resolve all claims of all parties. See Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97,¶12, 37 P.3d 1070.

Appellants responded to this court's motion; Appellees did not. Appellants claim that, because Appellees did not file further memoranda on the issue of attorney fees, by default, they were not issued and the judgment is final. The trial court, however, did not state that attorney fees would automatically become part of the judgment. Appellants argue that this case is distinguishable from Promax Development Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4,¶15, 998 P.2d 254, because, in Promax, only the amount of attorney fees remained for determination. In this case, however, both the issue of whether to impose fees and how much are unresolved.

The concern for judicial economy is even greater in this instance when both the imposition of fees and the amount are undecided.

The judgment of the trial court is not final and, as a result, this court lacks jurisdiction. "When a matter is outside the court's jurisdiction, it retains only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1998).

Accordingly, we dismiss.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge