Opinion ID: 2543734
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Final Order of Miller II

Text: ¶ 22 We have jurisdiction over an appeal only if the notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of a final order or judgment, Utah R.App. P. 3(a), 4(a), because we cannot consider an appeal in the absence of a final order. Ahlstrom v. Anderson, 728 P.2d 979, 979 (Utah 1986); see also Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 10, 37 P.3d 1070; Ellis, 2000 UT 101 at ¶ 31, 16 P.3d 1233; Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Martinez, 712 P.2d 243, 244 (Utah 1985). In this case, the Millers claim that they are appealing from the March 10, 2000, order as a final order under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a). However, the USAA defendants assert that the January 22, 1999, order was the final order in this case. To determine whether the Millers' notice of appeal was timely, we must decide which order constituted the final order. ¶ 23 A final order or judgment `must dispose of the case as to all the parties, and finally dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of the case.' Bradbury, 2000 UT 50 at ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649 (quoting Kennedy v. New Era Indus., Inc., 600 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979) (emphasis omitted)). In other words, to be a final judgment, the order must end the controversy between the litigants. Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶ 12, 37 P.3d 1070. When claims remain pending, an order is not final. Bradbury, 2000 UT 50 at ¶ 11, 5 P.3d 649; see also Martinez, 712 P.2d at 244. Hence, a court order compelling appraisal of the parties' claims pursuant to an appraisal clause in a contract is not a final judgment and is not immediately appealable [5] because the claims remain pending between the parties and the controversy between the litigants is perpetuated. See Wiepking v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 940 F.2d 996, 999 (6th Cir.1991); Pioneer Props., Inc. v. Martin, 776 F.2d 888, 890 (10th Cir.1985); S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Peabody W. Coal Co., 194 Ariz. 47, 977 P.2d 769, 774-75 (1999); Golden Lodge No. 13 v. Easley, 916 P.2d 666, 667 (Colo.Ct.App.1996); Gholston v. Cypress Prop. & Cas. Co., 789 So.2d 547, 548 (Fla. 3 DCA 2001) (per curiam); McGourty v. Pa. Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 704 A.2d 663, 665 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997); Cade v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, 956 P.2d 1073, 1080 (Utah Ct.App.1998). ¶ 24 The January 22, 1999, order was not a final judgment because it required the parties to appraise their claims. In that order, the district court specifically denied the Millers' motion to alter or amend the November 25, 1998, order in which the district court ordered the parties to proceed to appraisal. Accordingly, even after the district court issued the January 22, 1999, order, all of the Millers' claims were still pending, viable, and cognizable pursuant to that order, albeit in front of an appraisal panel. Thus, the January 22, 1999, order failed to dispose of the Millers' claims on their merits and did not end the controversy between the litigants. ¶ 25 Conversely, the March 10, 2000, order was a final order because it disposed of all the Millers' claims and effectively ended the controversy between the litigants. It was the first order that decisively eliminated the Millers' opportunity to have their extra-contractual claims resolved. All other orders antedating the March 10, 2000, order failed to terminate the controversy between the parties because those orders either referred all of the Millers' claims to appraisal for resolution or otherwise left the extra-contractual claims outstanding and unresolved.