McQuarrie v. McQuarrie
407 P.3d 1096
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Melvin McQuarrie (Husband) appealed an August 9, 2017 district‑court order dismissing both parties’ petitions to modify their divorce decree.
- The district court’s order also awarded Wife attorney fees but deferred determination of the fee amount to a later time.
- Wife moved for summary disposition in the appellate court, arguing the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not final while the fee amount remained undecided.
- Husband argued ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile was effectively overruled by amendments to Utah R. Civ. P. 58A and Utah R. App. P. 4, so the deferred fee amount did not defeat finality.
- The appellate court examined rules 4(b)(1)(F) and 58A(f), concluding those provisions apply only to post‑judgment motions or claims for fees, not to trial orders that award fees but expressly defer the amount.
- The court held the August 9, 2017 order was not a final, appealable order and dismissed the appeal without prejudice to a timely appeal after entry of a final order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 9, 2017 order is final for appellate jurisdiction | Rule 58A and App. R. 4 changes mean a deferred fee amount does not defeat finality; ProMax was effectively overturned | An order that awards fees but defers the amount is not final; ProMax remains controlling for non‑postjudgment fee deferrals | Not final: deferment of fee amount left issues unresolved, so appellate court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether rule 4(b)(1)(F) or 58A(f) make the order appealable | These rules eliminate ProMax’s finality rule for attorney‑fee issues | Those rules apply only when a post‑judgment motion/claim for fees is filed; not applicable here | Rule 4(b)(1)(F) and 58A(f) apply to post‑judgment fee motions/claims, not to trial orders deferring fee amounts |
| Whether ProMax remains good law for this situation | Rule amendments supersede ProMax broadly | ProMax still controls where the district court’s order itself contemplates further proceedings to set fee amount | ProMax’s principle remains applicable to pre‑final orders that defer fee amounts |
| Proper disposition of the appeal | Appeal should proceed under new rules | Appeal must be dismissed for lack of finality; may refile after final order | Appeal dismissed without prejudice; jurisdiction lacking until final, appealable order entered |
Key Cases Cited
- Loffredo v. Holt, 37 P.3d 1070 (Utah 2001) (appellate jurisdiction requires a final judgment or order)
- Bradbury v. Valencia, 5 P.3d 649 (Utah 2000) (finality requires disposition of the case as to all parties and the subject matter)
- ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 998 P.2d 254 (Utah 2000) (trial court must determine amount of attorney fees before judgment is final for appeal)