Opinion ID: 1355632
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of Entry of Final Judgment

Text: Interior contends that the trial court abused its discretion by entering judgment on the post-foreclosure rent claim, pursuant to Civil Rule 54(b). In Johnson v. State, 577 P.2d 706 (Alaska 1978), we stated that [t]he general rule governing appeals is that they may be taken only after the entire case is disposed of on all substantive issues. Id. at 709. While Civil Rule 54(b) was enacted to facilitate appeals involving multiple claims or multiple parties, id. at 710, that rule may not be invoked indiscriminately: There are two important limitations on the use of Rule 54(b). The first is that there must be a final decision on at least one claim or as to the entire interest of at least one party. The single judicial unit may be subdivided no further than that. Second, there must be a good reason for using Rule 54(b). Id. The judgment in this case satisfies both parts of the Johnson test. The judgment in this case disposes of the entire post-foreclosure rent claim. And, as this was the second Rule 54(b) certificate in this case, the policy against piecemeal appeals was not violated by this certificate. The question was rather whether it was better to require this portion of the case to remain with the pre-foreclosure rent claim, which was yet to be litigated, or to allow it to proceed on appeal, presumably (and as it turned out) consolidated with the appeal of the earlier judgment regarding ownership of the trade fixtures. There is a relationship between the trade fixture appeal and the present question, because if fair rental value is to be the measure, as Interior contends, that value will vary depending on the ownership of the trade fixtures. [8] Under these circumstances, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in entering the certificate.