1. The Ho no r a ble Russ ell W. Bench , Senior Judge, sat by speci al assi gnment as authorized by law

. Seege ner a lly Utah Code Jud. Admin. R. 11-201(6)

. 2014 UT App 199

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U T AH 

### C OU RT O F 

### A PPEALS

D ALE K. B ARK ER C O ., P C, P la i nti ff an d A pp el la nt,
v. J OHN K. B US HNEL L AND B USHNET , P C, Defendan ts and Appellees.

Mem oran du m D ec i s i on No. 20 13 02 55 -C A Filed Au gust 21, 2014

Thi rd Di stric t Co urt, S alt Lake Depart ment The Honorable Rober t P. Faust No. 060909585

Shawn D. Turner, At tor ney for Appellant Ja me s C. Le w i s , At torn ey f or Ap pe ll ees J UDG E M I CH ELE M. C H RI S TI ANSE N authore d thi s Memorandum Deci si on, i n whi ch J UDG E G REG O RY K. O R ME and S EN I O R J UDGE

R USS ELL W. B EN CH concu rr ed. 1

CH RIST IAN SEN , J ud ge:
¶1 John K. Bushnell hired Dale K. Barke r Co ., PC (Barker C o.) t o p r o v ide t a x a nd a cc o un t i n g s e r v ice s f o r B us hn e l l a nd his
c om pa ny, Bu s hn et, P C ( c oll ec ti vel y, B us hn ell). Th e s ervi c es co nt r act betw eenBu s hn el l a nd Ba rker C o. inc lu de d a n a ttorn eyfees provisi on stating that inthe ev e nt o f a breach, the “nonde fa ul ti ng p arty s ha llbe en ti tle d to a llc os ts an d a ttorn eys ’ feesDa le K . B a rker C o . v . B ush nell

20130255-CA 2 2014 UT App 199 i ncu rr ed i n enforci ng thi s Agr eement.” Wh en Bushnell a l legedly fa i le d to p ay B arke r Co. as agreed un de r the c ont rac t, B arke r Co.
s ue d Bu s hn el l fo r bre ach of c ont rac t. Bu s hn el l coun terc la i me d again st Barke r Co . for bre ach of c ontr act and negli gence. Bushnell
a l so fil e d a thir d -p a r t y co mp l a int a g a ins tDa l e B a r k e r in h is i nd i vi du alc ap a c i ty, a ll eging tha t Ba rker C o. w as Ba rker’s al ter e go, and seeking to hold Barke r per sonal l y liab le for any j udgment
en tere d a gains t Ba rker C o.
¶2 D al e B arke r mo ved fo r a di rec ted verd i c t onthe thi rd- pa rty
c om pl aint d uring the be nch tri al on Apri l 3, 200 8. Th e d i s tri c t c ou rt gran ted Ba rker’s mo ti on. Ba rker s ub mi tted a re qu es t f or atto rne y fe es an d c os ts i ncurre d in d efen ding a gains t t he th i rd- pa rty complaint, but the di stric t courtdeni ed hi s r equest. After t rial, the di stric t courtdi smi ssed B ushnell’s negli gence counterclai m, found aga i ns t Ba rker Co

. on i ts bre ach- of-c ont rac t c la i m, an d e nte red j ud g menti n favor of Bushnell on i ts breach-of-c ontr act
c ou nte r cla im . B us hn el l s ub s eque ntl y s ub mi tted a re qu es t f or atto rney fees and costs, wh i ch the di stric t courtgr anted.
¶ 3 Da l e B a r k e r a p p e a l e d the d ist r ictco ur t ’ s d e nia l o f h is request for fees and costs t hat he i ncu rr ed i n defendin g agains t the thi rd-part y complaint. Da le K . B a rker Co . v . B ush nell, 2009 UT App 38 5, ¶ 1, 22 2 P .3 d 1 18 8. Th i s c ou rt affi rme d th e distri c t c ou rt’s deni al of B a r k e r ’ s request. Id. ¶ 10 . Ou r s up rem e c ou rt la ter affi rmed the denialof Bark er’s r equested atto rney fees, but
rev ersed as to costs. Bus hne ll v. B a rker , 2012 UT 20, ¶ 1, 274 P.3d 968.
¶4 Ba rker C o. se pa rate ly app ea le d the di s tri c t c ou rt’s aw ard of fees and c osts to Bushnell. Da le K. Bar ker Co. v . B ush nell, 2 01 0 UT Ap p 1 89 , ¶ 15, 23 7 P. 3d 90 3. Th i s c ou rt reve rs ed the di s tri c t c ou rt’s award of fees and c osts and rema nd ed wi th i nstructi ons that the di stric t courtshould “c arefully examin e t he fees requested and rej ect any fees for clai ms in whi ch Bushnell was not suc cess ful, i .e., h i s n e gl i ge n c e c ou n te rc l a i m a n d h i s th i rd

- p a rty c om p l a i n t.” Id

. Ad di ti ona ll y, w e ins tru c ted the c ou rt to “m ake ad equa te fi nd i ngsDa le K . B a rker C o . v . B ush nell

20130255-CA 3 2014 UT App 199 of fa c t to s up port i ts attorn ey fe e aw ard an d the rea s onabl en es s of that award.” Id . We gav e si mi lar in structi ons regar ding costs, and we authorized a parti al award of fees incu rr ed on a ppeal. Id. ¶¶ 18–19. The su preme courtdeclined to r eview that deci si on. Ba rker v. Bus hne ll , 2 45 P .3 d 757(U tah20 10 ) ( de nying p eti ti on for wri t of cert i or ari)

. ¶5 After th i s c ou rt ’s rem an d a nd pu rporte dl y c ons i s ten t w i th
ou r i n s t r u c t i o n s , th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d a n a m e n d e d o r de r fo r atto rney fees and costs i n favor of Bushnell in November 2011. The court also concluded that B us hn e l l was entitled to addi tional attorn ey fees an d c os ts i ncurre d a s of D ec embe r 20 10 . Inres pon s e, Bushnell fil e d another request for atto rney fees and costs, wh i ch the courtgr anted i n an or der entered May 14, 2012. Thi s May 2012 orde r w as the fina l order res olving al l i s s ue s pe rtaining t o atto rne y fe e s inthis ca se , a s r e fl e ct e d by e x p r e ss l a ng ua g e t o tha te ff e ctin the court ’s order . However , the di stric t court r eferenced the supreme court’s dec i si on regarding Dale Barker’ s costs s temming from the t hi rd-part y complaint, seeBus hne ll, 2 012 UT 20, ¶ 19, statin g in the May 2012 or der, “If [Dale Barker ] desi res a de term i na ti on o n c os ts

. . . pl ea s e s ub mi t[ ] or res ub mi t tho s e c os ts and fi le a Notice to Submi t so the Court may deter mine the same.” Barke r subs equently fi led a reques t fo r his c osts, and the di stric t court awarded t hem on February 6, 2013.
¶6 Ba rker C o. fi le d anot i c e of ap pe alon M arch 6 , 2 01 3. In i ts
no t ice o f a p p e a l, B a r k e r C o
. a ss e r t e d tha t the fin a l o r d e r e nt e r e d in thi s case was the di stric t c ourt ’s Februar y 2013 or der a wardi ng costs to Dale Barke r. Howev er, Bar ke r C o .’s notic e of appeal i nd i c ate s tha t i t ap pe al ed onl y from the Nove mb er 20 11 am en de d order an d th e Ma y 20 12 orde r, b othof w hi c h a w ard ed attorn ey fe es an d cos ts to Bus hn el l. Ba rker C o. re qu es ts tha t w e ei the r vac ate
or modi fy the November 2011 and May 2012 o rder s, argui ng that
a ft e r r e ma nd B us hn e l l imp r o p e r l y ca t e g o r iz e d the a t t o r ne y fe e s in i ts fees affi davit submi tte d to the di stric t court and t hat some o f the fe es reque s ted byBu s hn el l w ere u nre asonab le . B arke r Co. ma kes a si mi lar ar gument wi th reg ard to the costs awarded to Bushnell.Da le K . B a rker C o . v . B ush nell

20130255-CA 4 2014 UT App 199 ¶7 Bu s hn el l a rgu es tha t Ba rker C o. f ai le d to t imel y fi le i ts ap pe alpu rs ua nt t o rul e 4 of the Uta h Rul es of Ap pe ll ate P roc ed ure an d th at w e th erefore l ac k juri s di c t ion and mu s t di s mi s s Ba rker Co.’s appeal. “Whether t hi s court has juris di cti on to hear an appeal i s a questi on of law.” Pearson v. South Jorda n Emp. Appeals Bd. , 2009 UTAp p 2 04, ¶ 8 , 2 16 P .3 d 9 96 (c i tati on a nd i nte rna l quo tati on marks omitted). Because j uri sdi cti on i s a threshold is sue, w e mus t address i t before consi dering the meri ts of Bark er Co .’s appeal. See id.
¶8 “An appeal may be t a k en from a di stric t . . . courtto t he
a p p e l late courtwi th jur i sdi cti on ov er t he appeal from all fi nal
or ders and j udgments .

. . .” Utah R. App. P. 3(a) (emphas i s added)

. A party wi shing to appeal fr om a final order or judgment must fi le i ts notic e of appeal “wi thi n 30 day s after t he date of entr y of t he judgment o r o rder .” Id. R. 4(a). Generally, i f a party fi les its noti ce of ap pe alafter th e th i rty- da y pe ri od h as exp i red , th e a pp ea l “ i s not tim ely fil e d ” and “thi s court lacks juris di cti on.” Foster v. M o nt go mer y, 2003 UT App 405, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 191 (c i tation and i nternal quot ation marks omi tte d). Butsee Ut a hR. Ap p
. P

. 4 ( b) (l i s ti ng the mo ti ons tha t w ou ld exte nd the da te f or fi ling anot i c e of appeal). “When a matter i s o utsi de [a] c ourt ’s juris di cti on i t r etains only t he a ut ho r it y to di smi ss the ac tion.” Varian–Eimac, Inc. v. La mo rea ux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).
¶9 For an order or judgment t o be consi dered fi nal, it “mus t
en d th e c ont rovers y b etw eenthe li ti gan ts ” or, “[ i ]noth er words, . . . the tr i al court’s deci si on must di spose of the clai ms of all p art i es.” Lo

ffr ed o v. Ho lt, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 12, 37 P.3d 1070. In the cont e x t o f atto rney fees, our supreme court has held that “a trial
c ou rt m us t de term i ne the am ou nt of attorn ey fe es aw ard ab le to a party before t he j udgment becomes fi nal for the purpo ses of an appe a l under Utah Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 3.” ProMa x Dev. Co rp . v . Ra ile, 2 0 0 0 U T 4 , ¶ 1 5 , 9 9 8 P. 2 d 2 5 4

. Ho we v e r, the sa me is not t rue for an award of costs: In Be dd o es v . G iff in , t he supreme court ex plained that altho ugh “di sputes as to at tor ney fees mus t beDa le K . B a rker C o . v . B ush nell

20130255-CA 5 2014 UT App 199 res olve d in ord er to h ave a fi na l ju dgm en t fo r ap pe al, . . . d i s pu tes as to courtcosts need not

. ” 2 007 UT 35, ¶ 11, 158 P.3d 1102. Th e court continued,

Th e que s ti on b ef ore u s i n thi s c as e i s w he the r a mo ti on for anaw ard of c os ts fi le d a fter the en try of jud gm en t de la ys the en try of jud gm en t f or pu rpos es of appeal un t il t he motion i s resolved. . . . [T]he
answ er is no. Only mate rial m atte rs that a ff ect the sub stance and character of a jud g ment mus t be resolv ed before a judgment is final. Court costs and other matter s clerical i n nat ure are not material and do notneed to be r esolved for a judgment to b e final for t he purposes of an appeal.

Id. ¶ 12.
¶10 Here, t he di stric t court’s May 2012 or der dis posed of the last
rem aining a ttorn ey- fe es c la i m in t hi s c as e. By th i s point, al l oth er “m ate ri alma tters ” h ad be enres olve d, i nc lu ding all s ub s tan ti ve clai ms an d atto rney-fees i ssu es stemming from t he underlyi ng li tigati on, attor ney-fees i ssu es stemming fro m fees incu rr ed duri ng the s evera l a pp ea ls take n in th i s c as e, an d th e rec al c ul ation of Bushnell’s fees aft e r remand. As of May 14, 2012, t he o nly
ou ts tan ding i s s ue i n thi s c as e was the c al c ul ati on o f D al e B arke r’s
c ou rt c os ts tha t he i ncurre d in d efen ding a gains t th e th i rd- pa rty
c om pl aint. How ever, “[ c ]o urtc os ts

. . . a re n ot m ate ri alan d d o no t
ne ed to be res olve d f or a ju dgm en t to b e fi na l f or th e p urp os es of an appeal.” Id. Accordi ngly, t he May 2012 o rder effecti vely “end[ed] the contr ov ersy between the liti gants,” see Loffre do, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 12, and thus the di stric t courtcorr ectly iden tifi ed that
o r d e r a s fin a l

. A l tho ug h the co ur ta wa r d e d Da l e B a r k e r his co st s in Feb rua ry 20 13 , th e fina l ord er in th i s c as e f or pu rpos es of de t e rmi ning our j uri sdi cti on ov er Bar ker Co.’s appeal i s the May 2 0 1 2 o r d e r
. B e ca us e B a r k e r C o
. d id n o tfil e it s n o t ice o f a p p e a l un t il Mar ch 6, 2013—m or e than thirty days after entry of the May 2012 orde r—or fi le any m oti on tha t w ou ld ha ve ex ten ded t he ti me fo rDa le K . B a rker C o . v . B ush nell

20130255-CA 6 2014 UT App 199 appeal, Barker Co.’s appeal i s not timely fi led. SeeFo st er , 2 00 3 UT App 405, ¶ 14. We ther efore lack juris di cti on an d mus t dis mi ss. See Varian–Eimac, Inc., 767 P.2d at 570.
¶11 Appeal di smi ssed.