Opinion ID: 1844586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs after entry of judgment

Text: Richard asserts that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction when judgment was entered on February 27, 1987, and that the court was therefore without authority to order Richard to pay Patricia's costs and attorney's fees. We disagree. When a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties has attached, the jurisdiction thus invoked continues until all issues before the court have been finally determined. Bryan v. Miller, 73 N.D. 487, 16 N.W.2d 275, 284 (1944). This is particularly true where the court expressly indicates its intention to rule later on a particular matter. Under the circumstances presented in this case it is clear that the trial court did not intend its February 27 judgment to be the final adjudication of all matters presented in the case. Two days prior the court had entered an order which clearly required further action by the court. We therefore conclude that the February 27 judgment was not a final determination of all issues before the court, see Bryan v. Miller, supra , and therefore the court retained jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to resolve the issue of costs and attorney's fees.