402 P.3d 34
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Ortiz filed a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment after the trial court entered summary judgment for Crowther.
- Ortiz also filed a notice of appeal after entry of judgment but before the trial court decided his Rule 59 motion.
- The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Rule 59 motion because it believed an appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction while the case was under advisement.
- This court, acting on its own motion, examined whether Ortiz’s notice of appeal transferred plenary jurisdiction to the appellate court given the pending Rule 59 motion.
- The appellate court determined Utah law (including appellate rules) treats a timely post-judgment Rule 59 motion as tolling the time to appeal and that a notice of appeal filed after judgment but before resolution of such a motion is treated as filed after the motion is resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ortiz’s notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to decide his Rule 59 motion | Ortiz’s appeal should not prevent the trial court from deciding his Rule 59 motion; the motion was timely and invoked Rule 59 | Crowther (and trial court) treated the notice of appeal as divesting jurisdiction, preventing further trial-court action | The notice of appeal did not divest the trial court; the court retains jurisdiction to decide the Rule 59 motion before the appeal proceeds |
| Whether a notice of appeal filed after judgment but before resolving a Rule 59 motion is timely/effective to transfer jurisdiction | Ortiz argued his notice is tolled by Rule 4(b) and therefore should be treated as filed after the Rule 59 decision | Opposing view: notice filed post-judgment still transfers jurisdiction immediately | The appellate rules (Utah R. App. P. 4(b)) treat such a notice as filed after the post-judgment motion is resolved; the notice does not yet transfer plenary jurisdiction |
| Whether courts have exceptions to the general rule that an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction | Ortiz relied on rules/statutory exceptions allowing certain trial-court actions while appeal pending | Trial court relied on a broad application of the divestiture rule | The court affirmed exceptions: trial court may act to prevent delay, take actions not affecting appellate issues, or as authorized by rule/statute (e.g., stays, fee waivers) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheves v. Williams, 993 P.2d 191 (Utah 1999) (recognizes general divestiture rule and its exceptions)
- Garver v. Rosenberg, 347 P.3d 380 (Utah 2015) (discusses timing of notices of appeal and that premature notices do not transfer jurisdiction)
- B.A.M. Dev., LLC v. Salt Lake County, 282 P.3d 41 (Utah 2012) (post-judgment motion invoking Rule 59 falls within Rule 4(b) tolling rule)