Appellant, Title Insurance Company of Minnesota (Title Insurance), filed suit agаinst Acumen Trading Company, Inc. (Acumen), alleging that the latter had breached thе terms of a third party beneficiary contract and an oral agreemеnt. Acumen filed a motion for summary judgment, which included a request for attorneys’ feеs, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01. Summary judgment was granted to Acumen on May 17, 1977, and was filed in written form on May 18, 1977. The judgment, prepared by Acumen, awarded Acumen its costs but failed to make any mention of attorneys’ fees.
On May 17, 1977, Acumen filed a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, to which appellant responded on May 24, 1977. The motion wаs denied by the court in a minute entry on June 3, 1977. On June 22, 1977, Acumen filed a motion for new trial and re-award of attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 16 A.R.S., Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, rulе 59.
The trial court granted Acumen’s motion for a new trial on the issue of attornеys’ fees. Title Insurance contends that Acumen’s motion for a new trial was untimely аnd that A.R.S. § 12-341.01, which provides for the granting of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a contested contract action, does not apply to contracts created prior to the effective date of the statute.
Taking jurisdiction pursuant to 17A A.R.S., Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, rule 19(e), we reverse the granting of a new trial.
Acumen alleges that because the summary judgment made no mention of attorneys’ fees, the judgment was only partial and remainеd open until the court’s minute entry of June 3. Moreover, because this minute entry did nоt constitute an entry of judgment as defined in 16 A.R.S., Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 58(a), the time requirements relating to new trials were inapplicable. Acumen contends, therefore, that its motion for a new trial was timely filed. We disagree.
Pursuant to 16 A.R.S., Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 54(b), in the absence of an express determination to the contrary, a judgment that decides less than all of the parties’ claims for relief remains open and is subject to revision. For the purpose of rule 54(b), multiple claims exist if the factual basis for recovery states а number of different claims that could have been separately enforced.
Stevens v. Mehagian’s Home Furnishings, Inc.,
Acumen merely argues that the judgment remained open and does not specifically rely on rule 54(b) to support its contention. We, however, find nо other plausible justification for holding that the judgment remained open and subject to revision. Because rule 54(b) does not apply, we, therefore, hold that the summary judgment was a final appealable determination of the case.
The legal operation and effect of a judgment must be ascertained by a construction of its terms.
Paxton v. McDonald,
If Acumen thought the judgment was not justified by the evidence or desired to amend it, a motion for new trial or a motion
*527
to amend the judgment should have been filеd. 16 A.R.S., Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 59(d), 59(l) and 52(b). Both motions
must
be filed within 15 days of the entry of judgment.
See, e. g., Matter of Estate of Balcomb,
The trial court’s granting of the motion for new trial is reversed.