2017 UT App 209

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

MELVIN MCQUARRIE,

Appellant,

v.

JANETTE COLLEDGE MCQUARRIE,

Appellee.

Per Curiam Opinion

No. 20170720-CA

Filed November 16, 2017

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Robert P. Faust

No. 084904419

James A. McIntyre and Richard R. Golden, Attorneys

for Appellant

Douglas B. Thayer, Andrew V. Wright, and Cole L. 

Bingham, Attorneys for Appellee

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN, and 

DAVID N. MORTENSEN.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Melvin McQuarrie (Husband) appeals the August 9, 2017 

order dismissing the parties’ respective petitions to modify their 

divorce decree. This matter is before the court on Janette 

Colledge McQuarrie’s (Wife) motion for summary disposition 

based upon lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final, 

appealable order. Specifically, she argues that the August 9, 2017 

order is not final because it awarded Wife attorney fees in an 

amount to be determined at a later date.

¶2 This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an 

appeal unless it is taken from a final judgment or order. See 

Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶¶ 10, 15, 37 P.3d 1070. An order is 
McQuarrie v. McQuarrie

20170720-CA 2 2017 UT App 209

final only if it disposes of the case as to all parties and “finally 

dispose[s] of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of 

the case.” Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Utah R. 

Civ. P. 54(b). 

¶3 Wife argues that the August 9, 2017 order is not final 

because the issue of attorney fees has not fully been resolved. See

ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4, ¶ 15, 998 P.2d. 254 (“[A] 

trial court must determine the amount of attorney fees 

awardable to a party before the judgment becomes final for the 

purposes of an appeal under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 

3.”). Husband responds that ProMax was effectively overruled 

by a recent amendment to rule 58A of the Utah Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Specifically, rule 58A(f) states: “A motion or claim for 

attorney fees does not affect the finality of a judgment for any 

purpose, but under Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, the time in 

which to file the notice of appeal runs from the disposition of the 

motion or claim.” Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(f). The advisory committee 

note to the rule states that the changes to the rule “are part of a 

coordinated effort to . . . change the effect of a motion for 

attorney fees on the appealability of a judgment. The combined 

amendments of this rule and Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 

effectively overturn ProMax Development Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 

4, 998 P.2d 254.” Id. R. 58A advisory committee note.

¶4 Contrary to Husband’s arguments, the changes in rule 

58A did not affect the appealability of the order in this case. Rule 

4(b)(1)(F) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure states: “If a 

party timely files in the trial court any of the following, the time 

for all the parties to appeal from the judgment runs from the 

entry of the dispositive order: . . . a motion or claim for attorney 

fees under rule 73 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.” Utah R. 

App. P. 4(b)(1)(F). Rule 73, like rule 4(b), is addressed to postjudgment motions. See Utah R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) (“The motion 

must: . . . specify the judgment and the statute, rule, contract, or 

other basis entitling the party to the award . . . .”). Under

subsection 4(b)(2), if a notice of appeal is filed after entry of a 
McQuarrie v. McQuarrie

20170720-CA 3 2017 UT App 209

judgment but before entry of an order resolving the postjudgment motion for attorney fees, then the notice of appeal will 

relate forward to the date the motion for attorney fees is

resolved. See Utah Rule App. P. 4(b)(2). However, rule 4(b)(1)(F) 

is not applicable to this case because no post-judgment motion 

for attorney fees was ever filed. In its August 9, 2017 order, the 

district court awarded attorney fees in an amount to be 

determined at a later date. Thus, the order, by its own terms,

contemplated additional actions by the parties in order to 

resolve issues still in dispute. Accordingly, because rule 

4(b)(1)(F) applies only to post-judgment motions for attorney 

fees and no such motion was filed in this case, traditional case 

law concerning the finality of judgment for purposes of appeal 

still applies.

¶5 Rule 58A(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure does not 

alter this court’s analysis. While rule 58A(f) does not reference 

rule 73 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, it mirrors the 

language of rule 4(b)(1)(F) of the Utah Rules of Appellate

Procedure in stating that a “motion or claim for attorney fees” 

does not affect the finality of a judgment. Compare Utah R. Civ. P. 

58A(f) with Utah R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(F). Rule 58A(f) expressly 

references rule 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure for 

determining the “time in which to file the notice of appeal.”

Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(f). As noted above, rule 4(b)(1)(F) sets forth 

the time to file a notice of appeal only when a post-judgment 

motion for attorney fees has been filed. Thus, it is clear that rule 

58A(f) is meant to address those situations in which a party files 

a motion for attorney fees after entry of a judgment that 

otherwise would be final for purposes of appeal.1It does not 

 

1. The advisory committee note to rule 58A also supports this 

conclusion. The note specifically states that the rule, in

connection with changes to rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, is meant to “change the effect of a motion for attorney 

fees on the appealability of a judgment.” Utah R. Civ. P. 58A 

advisory committee note (emphasis added). The advisory 

(continued...)
McQuarrie v. McQuarrie

20170720-CA 4 2017 UT App 209

affect the appealability issue in this case in which the district 

court’s order was never final because it contemplated additional 

actions by the parties.2

¶6 Accordingly, because the August 9, 2017 order was not 

final for purposes of appeal this court lacks jurisdiction to hear 

the appeal. When this court lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the 

appeal. See Loffredo, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 11. The appeal is, therefore,

dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal after 

the district court enters a final, appealable order.

 

(...continued)

committee note makes no mention of district court orders that

themselves contain language awarding attorney fees but that

defer determination of the amount.

2. We address the rules only as they relate to the issue of finality 

for purposes of appeal. We do not address whether the new 

rules impact the issue of finality as it relates to the enforceability 

of a judgment.