Court Opinion

ID: 9604204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:16:22.123337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:19.154392
License: Public Domain

BENCH, Judge
(concurring specially):
I write separately to address an important issue involving appellate jurisdiction. The main opinion erroneously treats the decision of the trial court as a final appeal-able judgment. See note 4. Both parties, however, contend that various issues remain before the trial court concerning the claims addressed on appeal. For example, the parties dispute what portion of the funds in the fire and life safety escrow had to be expended on the fire sprinkling system. Inasmuch as the trial judge still has under advisement the release of the funds in escrow, the trial court’s decision is clearly not final, either for purposes of direct appeal or rule 54(b) certification. See Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., 692 P.2d 765, 768 (Utah 1984) (to be a final order for purposes of rule 54(b), order must “wholly dispose[ ] of one or more ... claims or parties in the action”).
Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction unless we invoke our discretion pursuant to Rule 5(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, and treat this matter as an interlocutory appeal.
A timely appeal from an order certified under Rule 54(b), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, that the appellate court determines is not final may, in the discretion of the appellate court, be considered by the appellate court as a petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order.
Rule 5(a), Utah R.App.P. (effective October 1, 1992).
Despite the impropriety of the rule 54(b) certification in this case, I believe an interlocutory appeal would be appropriate in this matter and therefore join the main opinion in reaching the merits of the appeal.