Court Opinion

ID: 9581969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:20:52.16583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:22.023460
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I would dismiss this appeal for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.
“The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. * * * ” Rule 1.02, W.R. A.P.
“An appeal * * * shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal * * * within fifteen (15) days from entry of the judgment or final order appealed from * * *. The running of the time for appeal in a civil case is terminated as to all parties by a timely motion made by any party pursuant to any of the rules hereinafter enu*1290merated, and the full time for appeal commences to run and is to be computed from the entry of any of the following orders made upon timely motion under such rules, or when such motions are deemed denied; * * * Rule 50(b), W.R. C.P.; * * * Rule 59, W.R.C.P.” Rule 2.01, W.R.A.P.
Both Rule 50(b) and Rule 59, W.R.C.P., provide that motions thereunder shall be deemed denied if not determined within sixty days, provided that the court can continue the period for not more than ninety days from entry of the judgment.
The schedule of the pertinent filings in this case is as follows:
11/17/82 — Judgment entered
11/29/82 — Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions timely filed
2/15/83 — Motions deemed denied
3/2/83 — Deadline for filing notice of appeal
3/11/83 — Notice of appeal filed
3/15/83 — -Amended notice of appeal filed.
Obviously, the notices of appeal were not timely filed.
However, appellant argues that the judgment was not final inasmuch as it did not determine the amount of costs, and, therefore, the time for filing a notice of appeal would not commence to run until the order on costs was filed on March 1, 1983. The judgment provided in part:
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file her statement of costs. The costs allowed by the court shall become a part of this judgment.”
Normally, the settlement of the amount of costs is not a part of the judgment. It is frequently a post judgment computation. Often, it cannot be otherwise. As a collateral order, it does not affect the finality of the judgment.
“A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in action. * * * ” Rule 54, W.R.C.P.
Costs are the subject of subsection (d) of that rule. It provides that costs be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court directs otherwise or unless rules and statutes expressly provide otherwise. The rule treats costs as an adjunct to the judgment, although includable therein.
The separation of the costs from the judgment insofar as finality is concerned is illustrated by the fact that an appeal may be had relative to the ruling on costs entirely apart from the judgment.
« * * * a £jnaj judgment does not always end the lawsuit. Decisions may be necessary after an appeal has been taken or after the time for appeal from the final judgment has expired. The final judgment rule does not preclude review of such decisions. They are themselves subject to the test of finality, but an appeal can ultimately be taken from them.
“ * * * The following postjudgment orders have been held to be final: * * * an order taxing costs; * * * Of course, appeals from such orders do not permit an attack on the underlying judgment if it is then final because it has been affirmed on an earlier appeal or because the time for appeal has expired. * * * ” 9 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 110.14[1], pp. 196-197.
See Hill v. Whitlock Oil Services, Inc., 450 F.2d 170 (10th Cir.1971), 14 A.L.R.Fed. 895; and United States v. 2,186.63 Acres of Land, Wasatch County, Utah, 464 F.2d 676 (10th Cir.1972).
The definition of a judgment, supra, reflects finality to be on that which has to do with the merits of an action. Costs are collateral to the merits of an action. They are not included in that which gave rise to the action.
“ * * * [W]here further action of the court is necessary to give a complete adjudication upon the merits, the judgment under which the further question arises is to be regarded, not as final, but as interlocutory.
“However, a judgment on the merits defining and settling the rights of the parties is not rendered interlocutory by the fact that further orders may be necessary to carry into effect the rights settled by the judgment. * ⅜ * ” 47 Am. Jur.2d, Judgments, § 1054, p. 124.
*1291The presence or absence of cost provisions in an order or judgment, and the scope thereof, may be error, but such alone cannot be the basis of determining the finality of the order or judgment.
The notice of appeal was not timely filed in this case and I would dismiss the appeal for that reason.