Case Information
*1 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
‐‐‐‐ ooOoo ‐‐‐‐ Federal Credit Union, ) PER CURIAM DECISION
)
Plaintiff Appellee, ) Case No. )
v. )
) F I L E D Jerry W. Parkin, Trustee ) (May 2012) Wilma G. Family ) Protection Trust; Escrow Specialists, ) App 140 Inc., )
)
Defendants Appellee. ) )
)
George K. Fadel, )
)
Appellant. )
‐‐‐‐‐
Second District, Farmington Department, Honorable David Hamilton
Attorneys: George Fadel, Bountiful, Attorney Appellant Pro Se
David J. Shaffer, Bountiful, Appellee Successor Protection Trust Wallace O. Felsted S. Moesinger, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Union ‐‐‐‐‐
Before Judges Thorne, Roth.
¶1 George Fadel filed a notice of appeal on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of of the Parkin Protection Trust (Parkin). This matter is before the court on motions for summary disposition filed by Deseret First Union and Parkin.
¶2 On January 26, 2012, the district court issued a minute entry stating that Fadel was no longer counsel for Parkin and “has no current basis to submit pleadings on behalf of the defendants.” Accordingly, Fadel had no right to file a notice of appeal on behalf of Parkin on February 7, 2012. As a result, the notice of appeal filed on behalf of Parkin was ineffectual in invoking the jurisdiction of this court.
¶3 To the extent Fadel has filed a notice of appeal on his own behalf, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal because there is no order as it relates to Fadel. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an unless it is taken from final judgment or order, or qualifies for an exception to the final judgment rule. See Loffredo v. Holt , 2001 UT 97, ¶¶ 10, 15, 37 P.3d 1070. An order “that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims rights liabilities of all the parties.” Utah Civ. P. 54(b).
¶4 A motion for sanctions against Fadel currently pending in the district court. In the January 26, 2012 ruling the district court stated that it would consider the motion ordered Fadel to file response to the motion. Thus, to the extent that Fadel filed the notice of on his own behalf, there remain issues for the district court to resolve. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. When this court lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the appeal. See Loffredo , 2001 ¶ 11. Both Deseret have requested attorney fees in this matter under
rule 33 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. district court has not yet issued any ruling on First’s request sanctions based upon Fadel papers in the district court on behalf of Parkin. If the district court determines that Fadel violated rule Utah Rules Civil Procedure, then may also award attorney fees incurred by associated with responding this appeal. *3 dismissed without prejudice timely after enters order.
____________________________________ Judge
____________________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
Stephen L. Roth, Judge