Opinion ID: 1160340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issue of appealability

Text: The threshold issue in this appeal is whether the court has before it an appealable judgment or order. This court has repeatedly stated that although art. 5, § 9, of the Idaho Constitution gives this court jurisdiction to review any decision of the district courts, the phrase `any decision' does not mean all decisions made by said courts or the judges thereof during the progress of a trial, but only such as are final or such as are specifically provided for by statute... . Weiser Irrig. Dist. v. Middle Valley Irrig. Ditch Co., 28 Idaho 548, 553, 155 P. 484, 486 (1916). See Pulver v. State, 92 Idaho 627, 448 P.2d 241 (1968); Farmers Equip. Co. v. Clinger, 70 Idaho 501, 222 P.2d 1077 (1950). Rule 11 of the Idaho Appellate Rules provides that appeals to this court may be taken: From the following judgments and orders of a district court in a civil action: 1. Final judgments and decrees including decisions by the district court dismissing, affirming, or reversing or remanding an appeal. 2. Judgments made pursuant to a partial summary judgment certified by the trial court to be final as provided by Rule 54(b), I.R.C.P. 3. An order granting or refusing a new trial. 4. An order granting or denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. 5. Any order made after final judgment. Under the circumstances of the instant case, this court finds that in order for the partial summary judgment to be appealable, it must come within I.A.R. 11's provisions allowing appeals either from final judgments or from [j]udgments made pursuant to a partial summary judgment certified by the trial court to be final as provided by Rule 54(b), I.R.C.P. The record shows no certification of the partial summary judgment pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(b). Therefore the partial summary judgment must be a final judgment if this court is to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Whether an instrument is an appealable order or judgment must be determined by its content and substance, and not by its title. Howell v. Reimann, 77 Idaho 84, 87, 288 P.2d 649, 651 (1955); State v. McNichols, 62 Idaho 616, 115 P.2d 104 (1941); Swinehart v. Turner, 36 Idaho 450, 211 P. 558 (1922). Thus if the instrument ends the suit, Farmers Equipment Co. v. Clinger, supra , adjudicate[s] the subject matter of the controversy, Doolittle v. Morley, 76 Idaho 138, 140, 278 P.2d 998, 999 (1955), and represents a final determination of the rights of the parties, Pulver v. State, 92 Idaho 627, 628, 448 P.2d 241, 242 (1968) (citing former I.C. § 10-701), the instrument constitutes a final judgment regardless of its title. See Southland Produce Co. v. Belson, 96 Idaho 776, 536 P.2d 1126 (1975); Viani v. Aetna Ins. Co., 95 Idaho 22, 501 P.2d 706 (1972); Gerry v. Johnston, 85 Idaho 226, 378 P.2d 198 (1963); Lamberton v. McCarthy, 30 Idaho 707, 168 P. 11 (1917); Evans State Bank v. Skeen, 30 Idaho 703, 167 P. 1165 (1917). This court's examination of a somewhat confused record shows that the partial summary judgment was intended as a final judgment. The partial summary judgment disposed of the substantive issues, leaving for determination only the issue of attorneys fees and costs of suit. It is significant that the partial summary judgment not only determines that appellant is liable on the dishonored check and establishes the amount of the damages, but it also calculates interest on the amount of the liability. If the court had truly granted a partial summary judgment it would not have calculated interest until entry of a subsequent final judgment. See State ex rel. Symms v. Collier, 93 Idaho 19, 454 P.2d 56 (1969); Elliot v. Elliot, 88 Idaho 81, 396 P.2d 719 (1964). Furthermore, if the partial summary judgment were only that, the court would not have granted a stay of execution pending a ruling on the motion to reconsider the decision; there can be no execution on a money judgment not yet final. Nor did respondent act in any way inconsistent with the finality of the partial summary judgment. Following the filing of the notice of appeal, respondent joined appellant in a stipulation waiving supersedeas bond  a stipulation that referred to appellant's appeal [from] the Partial Summary Judgment. Under these circumstances, the court holds that the partial summary judgment was intended to be and is a final judgment that anticipated subsequent determination of costs by the trial court. Dolbeer v. Harten, 91 Idaho 141, 148, 417 P.2d 407, 414 (1966) (dicta). There being a final judgment, the case is appealable to this court under I.A.R. 11 and will be decided on its merits.