Opinion ID: 874258
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is There a Final Judgment in this Lawsuit?

Text: The Harrisons seek to appeal the district court's award against them of court costs and attorney fees totaling $11,245.50. This Court must address a question as to its jurisdiction even if not raised by the parties. Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 500, 504, 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005). No final judgment has been entered with respect to the Harrisons' claims for relief in this case. On August 11, 2008, the district court entered a document entitled Judgment that stated as follows: The Court hereby enters Judgment against H. Ray Harrison and Julie Harrison in favor of Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. 20053 Issued to Jeffrey Hartford, M.D. Effective from June 1, 2004 to June 1, 2005 With an retroactive Effective Date of June 1, 2003 and NAS Insurance Services, Inc. The Court directs Defendants to file a memorandum of costs and fees in an amount to be proven pursuant to Idaho Code § 7-914. Although the document was entitled Judgment, that is not controlling. Whether an instrument is an appealable order or judgment must be determined by its content and substance, and not by its title. Camp v. East Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 137 Idaho 850, 867, 55 P.3d 304, 321 (2002). A judgment must be a separate document that on its face states the relief granted or denied.  Id. (citations omitted; emphasis added). Although the document stated that the court hereby enters Judgment against H. Ray Harrison and Julie Harrison in favor of Defendants, nowhere does it state what relief was either granted the Defendants or denied the Harrisons. The Harrisons had filed a four-count amended complaint by which they sought to recover money damages. Lloyd's filed an answer in which it asked for dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice. [E]very final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled. I.R.C.P. 54(c). The purported judgment does not state the relief to which Lloyd's was entitleddismissal of the amended complaint. A document does not constitute a judgment merely because it states who will prevail in the lawsuit. For example, in Spokane Structures, Inc. v. Equitable Investment, LLC, 148 Idaho 616, 619, 226 P.3d 1263, 1266 (2010), the court had entered an order granting summary judgment which stated as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there exists no issue as to any material fact and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff be, and it is, granted and that judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendant Equitable Investment, LLC, and against the Plaintiff, Spokane Structures, Inc. Id. at 619, 226 P.3d at 1266. From that order, it was obvious that the defendant would prevail in the lawsuit. Nevertheless, we held, This order did not constitute a judgment. Id. Even though it was obvious from the order that the defendant would prevail in the lawsuit, the order did not meet the requirements of a judgment. It did not grant the relief to which the defendant was entitled. Id. In this case, the purported judgment states that the district court hereby enters Judgment against the Harrisons and in favor of the Defendants. (Emphasis added.) The entry of a judgment is simply [t]he filing of a judgment by the court as provided in Rule 5(e) or the placing of the clerk's filing stamp on the judgment. I.R.C.P. 58(a)(2). A judge would enter a judgment by accepting it for filing, in which event the judge shall note thereon the filing date, hour and minute and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk. I.R.C.P. 5(e)(1). In order to enter a judgment, there must first be a document that qualifies as a judgment. The document entitled Judgment does not qualify. On October 10, 2008, the district court entered a document entitled Amended Judgment. It suffers from the same deficiency as the Judgment. It does not state on its face any relief granted to the Defendants or denied to the Harrisons on their amended complaint. [1] The Amended Judgment merely stated: The Court hereby enters an Amended Judgment against H. Ray Harrison and Julie Harrison in favor of Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. 20053 Issued to Jeffrey Hartford, M.D. Effective from June 1, 2004 to June 1, 2005 With an Retroactive Effective Date of June 1, 2003 and NAS Insurance Services, Inc. The Court entered an Order granting Defendants' request for attorney fees in the amount of Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars and Fifty Cents ($11,245.50). The Court hereby enters Judgment against Plaintiffs in the amount of $11,245.50. Until all claims for relief in this lawsuit have been resolved by entry of a judgment, there is no final judgment. In re Universe Life Ins. Co., 144 Idaho 751, 755, 171 P.3d 242, 246 (2007); Piske v. Freeman, 143 Idaho 832, 833, 153 P.3d 1178, 1179 (2007); I.R.C.P. 54(b). Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.