Appellant seeks to appeal from a decision granting appellees a tax exemption for certain purchased property and a refund of taxes paid. Appellees move to dismiss the appeal as untimely. To decide this motion, *919 we must decide whether the appealable order is that dated April 19, Í985, which granted the tax exemption and the refund, or that dated May 3, 1985, which set the amount of the refund. We hold that because an order stating the sanction or quantum of relief is the order with the requisite finality, the second order setting the amount of the refund is the appealable order. Appellant’s appeal is thus timely. Appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal is denied with prejudice.
'I.
The appellees, the Trustees of Amherst College (“Trustees”), are the owners and operators of the Folger Shakespeare Library. The Trastees bought several pieces of real property for the Folger and filed an action in the Superior Court, Tax Division, seeking a tax exemption for this property. Appellant, the District of Columbia (“the District”), opposed the tax-exempt status.
On April 18,1985, the trial judge granted the Trustees’ motion for surntnary. judgment and awarded the property táx-exempt status. At the' same. time,. fee trial , judge found that the Trustees, were entitled to. a refund of taxes paid on the property. . The trial judge ordered the Trustees to, submit within ten days of the. signing of the order ' a Proposed Order setting, forth fee amount of the refund. This order Was filed .on April 19, 1985. . . .
The Trustees submitted a Proposed >Gr-' der, having calculated the amount of the . refund due from their , records. The District did not object to this Proposed Order. The trial judge then signed another order, “[i]n furtherance of the Opinion and Order, rendered by this Court on April-18, 1985,” setting the dollar amount of the refund. This second order was filed on May 3,1985.
On June 3, 1985, the District filed a notice of appeal. The Trustees now move to dismiss the appeal as untimely. They argue that the final, appealable order was the April 19, 1985 order granting the refund, not the May 3,1985 order setting the dollar figure of the refund. Thus, they claim, the thirty-day time limit for filing an appeal started on April 24, 1985 (five days after the April 19th order was entered in the civil docket by the clerk) 1 and expired on May 24, 1985. The District opposes the motion to dismiss, claiming that the May 3, 1985 order is the final, appealable order, making the June 3, 1985 notice of appeal timely. 2
II
This court has jurisdiction to review “all final orders and judgments of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.” D.C.Code § ll-721(a)(l) (1981). The general rule for determining which order of the trial court is final and appealable is “that the order stating the sanction, quantum of relief, or the like is the one with the requisite finality.”
Trilon Plaza Co. v. Allstate Leasing Corp.,
The Trustees argue, however, that the May 3 order was “purely a ministerial act” in carrying out the April 19 order and that therefore, the final order was the April 19 order. In support of their argument, the
*920
Trustees cite
Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma,
The Supreme Court in
Republic Natural Gas
stated that “the requirement of finality has not been met ... where liability has been determined and all that needs to be adjudicated is the amount of damages.”
Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, supra,
In addition, the statute governing refunds of taxes requires that the sum be “finally determined by the Superior Court.” D.C.Code § 47-3306 (1981); see also Super.Ct.Tax R. 15. The necessity that an order be entered by the court prior to a refund further compels the conclusion that the May 3 order is not purely a ministerial one but instead, the final appealable order. In light of the foregoing, appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Ill
An additional issue remains to be decided. That is: does the denial of a motion to dismiss by a Motions Division bind a subsequently assigned Merits Division? There has been no authoritative decision on this point by this court, although we have had cases where a Merits Division has deemed earlier Motions Division action to have been without prejudice to reconsideration. The problem has not only arisen in denials of dismissal motions. It has been presented in denials of motions to supplement the record, motions to strike, or motions to remand for various purposes. We hold that when a Motions Division denies any of these kinds of motions, such denials shall be deemed to be without prejudice to reconsideration by a Merits Division. 3 If, however, a Motions Division denies such motions “with prejudice,” the question is conclusively decided absent Motions Division rehearing or en banc rehearing of the Motions Division’s decision. The court follows the practice of random selection of divisions. Motions Divisions are composed of two judges with a third judge designated to participate in case of a tie vote or in the event an opinion is written, as in this case. See D.C.App.Internal Operating Procedures, Part IV (1983). We will follow the practice of having all three judges participate any time a “with prejudice” decision is made. See D.C.Code § ll-705(b) (1981).
In light of what we have said in this case, we order that this motion to dismiss be denied with prejudice.
So ordered.
Notes
. Under D.C.App.R. 4(a)(1), a notice of appeal must be filed "within thirty days after entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.,.." In this case that would mean that the filing deadline was June 2, the thirtieth day after May 3. However, since June 2 was a Sunday, the deadline was automatically extended to the next business day, which was Monday, June 3. See D.C.App.R. 26(a).
.
Cf. Association of Investment Brokers v. Securities and Exchange Commission,