*1 702 Allen,
ment Metcalf & surеty Rogers, Vahrenwald, be vacated and the released be obligation. Metcalf, from the Collins, bond Thomas appel- W. Fort for
lee. PIERCE, J., *, Justice, Roy, and HODGES Arthur Greeley, appellant. P. for concur.
PIERCE, Judge. marriage action,
In this dissolution of the us appeal issue before is the whether should be dismissed prejudice without for of judgment. lack a final concludе We that judgment no final by has been entered the court, trial therefore, and we thе dismiss appeal prejudice. without Larry In re the MARRIAGE OF 23, 1988, On June the trial court dated HOFFNER, Apрellee, signed and judgment a written respect with and permanent the to orders. This written judgment register entered was into the of Hoffner, Mary Appellant. M. actions on thе same date. The written judgment jurisdiction reserved over certain No. 88CA1364. real prоperty parties and the to directed Appeals, of Colorado Court negotiate of property. division that Div. I. 12,1988, August On parties after the had agreed failed to at an arrive division of the 27, July 1989. property, the trial court conducted a hear- orally ing, the the property, ordered sale of and prepare dirеcted counsel to a written Although order. the oral order is reflected register actions, in the of no written order appears 12, in September the record. On 1988, the appeal notice of was filed in this court. 13, 1989, April
On this court an issued to why aрpeal order show cause the should final, be not dismissed for lack a apрeal- of judgment able judg- because no written August 12, ment as to the 1988 order had dated, prepared, signed been by and the required 58(a) trial court as by C.R.C.P. (1988 (amendment Cum.Supp.) effective 1, April 1988). Appellant, Mary M. Hoff- ner, responded arguing (1) Au- that: the 12, gust 1988, 'pro was nunс ruling oral tunc to the 23, 1988, judg- June written that, ment and consequently, judgment the final; (2) was and if the cоurt determines final, judgment the that was not the case should be remanded to trial the fоr court entry of judgment final rather than be dis- * § and assignment 24-51-1105, Sitting by 10B). (1988 of the Chief under Repl.Vol. Justicе C.R.S. Const., provisions VI, 5(3), of the Colo. art. Sec.
703 HUME, J., reject concurs. We each рrejudice. missed without arguments. of these TURSI, J., dissents. 1(a), is C.A.R. this matter reviewa- Under TURSI, dissenting. Judge, judgment. if final A only taken from a
ble
respectfully
I
dissent.
par-
is
"ends a
judgment
one which:
final
entеred, leaving
prema-
The
us is
in
is
issue before
whether a
ticular action which it
appeal
of
must
dismissed
ture notice
be
pronouncing
nothing further
the court
for
jurisdiction.
I
of lack of
submit
because
completely
in order to
determine
it to do
jurisdiction
the
of this
at-
that
court does
in
rights
parties
of the
involved
the
the
filing
appеal.
on
of a notice of
tach
the
Jones,
v.
proceeding.” Harding Glass Co.
(3)(a).
See C.A.R.
(Colo.1982).
1123
P.2d
640
Further,
guidance in
I find
Lewis v. B.F.
However,
58(a), as now in ef-
C.R.C.P.
Co.,
(10th Cir.1988).
F.2d 641
850
Goodrich
fect,
jury verdicts or trial
provides that all
Corp.
Lewis overruled A.O. Smith
v. Sims
judgments
or
must be in
court orders
writ-
Consolidated, Ltd.,
(10th
orado New 288, (Colo.1925). 236 P.
Colo. 783 prejudice.
Appeal dismissed without