Opinion ID: 1943801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Defendants argue that because the trial court failed to address a number of the issues they raised on summary judgment, the court's judgment is not final and thus not ripe for appeal. It is elementary that a final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction. Hospitality Inns v. South Burlington R.I., 149 Vt. 653, 656, 547 A.2d 1355, 1358 (1988). `The test of whether a decree or judgment is final is whether it makes a final disposition of the subject matter before the Court.' Morissette v. Morissette, 143 Vt. 52, 58, 463 A.2d 1384, 1388 (1983) (quoting Woodard v. Porter Hospital, Inc., 125 Vt. 264, 265, 214 A.2d 67, 69 (1965)). We require that the decree or judgment disposed of all matters that should or could properly be settled at the time and in the proceeding then before the court. In re Estate of Webster, 117 Vt. 550, 552, 96 A.2d 816, 817 (1953). As in this case, where multiple claims are involved, any decision that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action. V.R.C.P. 54(b). From its order, it is clear that the court intended its ruling to be final. At the conclusion of the court's order, the court stated, Should either party require a more formal declaratory judgment, it may submit one within ten days. Barring such submission, the foregoing shall constitute the judgment of the court. Here, defendants contend that the court's judgment, in fact, is not final because the court did not address each claim that defendants raised to limit their liability under the policy. We agree with defendants that the court failed to address several issues that needed to be addressed, see infra part IV. The trial court's resolution of the case did not render these issues irrelevant or superfluous. Because the court decided that defendants are liable for coverage for the civil proceeding, it should have addressed all the claims that purport to limit defendants' liability for that coverage. The court left several claims undecided, and thus the legal rights and liabilities of each party were not resolved conclusively. [1] We must conclude, therefore, that the court's order is not a final judgment, and a proper appeal lies only pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5. Huddleston v. Univ. of Vt., 168 Vt. 249, 251, 719 A.2d 415, 417 (1998). None of the procedures for perfecting an interlocutory appeal was followed in this case. See V.R.A.P. 5. According to V.R.A.P. 2, however, we have discretion to suspend application of Rule 5 where dismissal would most likely result in another appeal after remand, the merits of the question of law were fully briefed and argued, and the Court has expended valuable time on the case. In re Smith, 169 Vt. 162, 167, 730 A.2d 605, 609 (1999). Given that these requirements have been met in this case, we may entertain this appeal under V.R.A.P. 2. Further, because ultimately we reverse the court on several issues, the interests of judicial economy compel us to rule on those claims that the court did reach. Therefore, consistent with the court's explicit intent, we will treat the court's ruling as one for partial summary judgment under V.R.C.P. 54(b). See In re E.W., 169 Vt. 542, 543, 726 A.2d 58, 60 (1999) (mem.).