In the Matter of the Estate of Ralph T. Wall (Wall v. Wall)
2012 UT App 105
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Estate of Ralph T. Wall and Merle Moss Wall; appellants Dean Wall and Julie Barthlow; appellees Mike Wall, Pat Wall, Russell Wall.
- District Court Jan. 4, 2012 order: recognized a settlement but left terms unresolved; reserved ruling on terms after discovery and other proceedings; granted a prejudgment writ of attachment provisionally.
- Wall filed a notice of appeal from the Jan. 4, 2012 order; the order was interlocutory, not final.
- Barthlow did not file a notice of appeal on her own behalf.
- Utah law requires a final judgment or order from which an appeal may lie; interlocutory orders generally are not appealable unless final.
- Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and noted the possibility of a timely appeal from a final judgment, if one is entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Jan. 4, 2012 order final and appealable? | Wall argues the order is appealable. | Court treated the order as interlocutory and not final. | Lacks jurisdiction; order not final or appealable. |
| Did Barthlow's failure to file a separate notice of appeal deprive appellate jurisdiction? | Barthlow intended to appeal. | Barthlow failed to perfect an appeal on her own behalf. | Lack of jurisdiction to consider Barthlow's purported appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loffredo v. Holt, 37 P.3d 1070 (Utah Supreme Court 2001) (final-order rule in Utah appellate review)
- Bradbury v. Valencia, 5 P.3d 649 (Utah Supreme Court 2000) (finality requirement for appeal; interlocutory orders generally not appealable)
- Varian‐Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569 (Utah Court of Appeals 1989) (jurisdictional dismissal once lack of jurisdiction is determined)