¶1 Appellants Nichole Trombley and Robb Sibley appeal the summary judgment entered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, in favor of Respondent John Ague. The District Court, however, denied Respondent Dorothy Mann’s motion for summary judgment.
¶2 We conclude that absent certification by the District Court, pursuant to Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P., this Court cannot assume jurisdiction in this matter. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice and remand to the District Court for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
¶3 Trombley and Sibley purchased real property in Lincoln County, Montana, from Mann in 1997. Ague was Mann’s broker with whom Mann had listed the property. Following the transaction, Trombley and Sibley brought suit over an alleged access problem, and named both Mann and Ague as defendants.
¶4 Mann and Ague both filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court, in a February 3, 2000 order, granted summary judgment in favor of Ague, determining that whatever duty he owed to the plaintiffs to disclose information regarding access to Mann’s property was fully discharged. The court, however, denied Mann’s motion for summary judgment, determining that, as the seller, material facts remained in dispute regarding the disclosure of the alleged access problem.
¶5 Subsequently, Trombley and Sibley filed this appeal, arguing that the court committed reversible error by determining that no material facts remained in dispute regarding Ague’s disclosure of information pertaining to access to the property at issue.
DISCUSSION
¶6 As a general rule, this Court assumes jurisdiction of an appeal in a civil matter only where a final judgment has been entered.
See
Rule 1(b)(1), M.R.App.P. This Court may also assume jurisdiction over interlocutory matters pursuant to the exceptions found under Rule 1(b)(2) through (3), and Rule 3, M.R.App.P. Although the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction was not raised by either party, we may address the question
sua sponte. See Thompson v. Crow Tribe of Indians,
¶7 It is clear that the District Court’s February 3, 2000 order granting summary judgment in favor of Ague, but denying Mann’s motion for summary judgment, was not a final judgment in this action.
See generally Cechovic v. Hardin & Assoc., Inc.
(1995),
¶8 In an action involving multiple parties, such as the underlying case here, a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties may be entered only upon an express determination by the court that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.
See
Rule. 54(b), M.R.Civ.P.;
Shull v. First Interstate Bank of Great Falls
(1993),
¶9 There is absolutely no indication here, however, that the District Court expressed that this matter should be certified as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), M.R.Civ.P. The Rule 54(b) certification requirement is not a mere formality but is a “necessary and valuable tool for preventing piecemeal litigation and waste of the resources of both the litigants and the courts.”
See McDonald v. Unirex, Inc.
(1986),
¶10 Thus, we conclude that no “final judgment,” as defined by Rule 54(a), M.R.Civ.P., was issued and, therefore, no appeal was available pursuant to Rule 1(b)(1), M.R.App.P.
See Shull,
¶11 Accordingly, we hold that the February 3, 2000 order granting summary judgment in favor of Ague but denying Mann’s motion for summary judgment was not appealable. We remand this matter to the District Court, and in doing so we will not address the substantive issues raised or assume certification in this matter is proper. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Appellants appeal is dismissed without prejudice.
¶12 The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy of this Opinion and Order to counsel of record for the parties, to the Clerk of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, and to the Honorable Michael C. Prezeau.
DATED this 9th day of August, 2001.