Central Utah Water Conservancy District v. King
297 P.3d 619
| Utah | 2013Background
- District filed condemnation action against six waterfront lots owned by King; appraisal value $28,400; offer $48,600.
- Jury verdict awarded King $56,100 plus statutory interest on part of judgment.
- King moved for a new trial on November 22, 2010; district court denied on February 8, 2011 in a Ruling and Order.
- King filed a notice of appeal on March 9, 2011; Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
- Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for nonfinality under Giusti and Rule 7(f)(2).
- Court holds district court’s Ruling and Order was not final/appealable; appeal premature; requires explicit order or approved proposed order to trigger appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Rule 7(f)(2) render the ruling final for appeal? | King contends the district court’s Ruling and Order was final. | District contends no final, appealable order was entered; no triggering of the appeal period. | No final/appealable order; appeal premature. |
| Is Rule 4(c) saving notice of appeal sufficient without a final order? | King relies on Rule 4(c) safe harbor to preserve appeal rights. | Rule 4(c) requires a final order or explicit directive that no order is necessary to trigger finality. | Rule 7(f)(2) compliance required; Rule 4(c) does not cure lack of explicit final order. |
| Does Giusti overrule earlier distinctions between preserving vs. denying appellate jurisdiction? | King argues Giusti preserves appeal rights in certain contexts. | District argues Giusti governs finality uniformly. | Rule 7(f)(2) applies to all final district court decisions; no exception for preservation. |
| What triggers finality under Rule 7(f)(2) when no explicit direction of no additional order is given? | King contends a final ruling exists upon denial of a new-trial motion. | District did not submit an order or state that no further order was needed. | Finality requires explicit direction or a submitted/entered order. |
| May a party delay finality by failing to submit a proposed order within 15 days? | N/A (King seeks timely appeal upon finality). | District's failure to submit a proposed order delays finality; otherwise indefinite extension possible. | If no order is submitted and no explicit direction, appeal period not triggered; otherwise, potential indefinite extension is avoided by rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 201 P.3d 966 (2009 UT 2) (rule 7(f)(2) applies to all final district court decisions)
- Code v. Utah Dep't of Health, 162 P.3d 1097 (2007 UT 43) (final order required; explicit direction if no order needed)
- Dove v. Cude, 710 P.2d 170 (Utah 1985) (preservation of appellate rights discussed in prior context)
- Cannon v. Keller, 692 P.2d 740 (Utah 1984) (preservation of appeal rights discussed in prior context)
- Bradbury v. Valencia, 5 P.3d 649 (Utah 2000) (applies finality/appeal standards)