Court Opinion

ID: 9786213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:50:40.526774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:42.455100
License: Public Domain

McHUGH, Judgé
(concurring):
¶ 9 I concur in the main opinion. I write separately to address the possible confusion created by the conflict between the controlling precedent and the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The cases from this court and the Utah Supreme Court that are cited by the majority hold that a decision of the trial court that fully determines the substantive rights of the parties is final for purposes of appeal absent express language to the contrary. See State v. Leatherbury, 2003 UT 2, ¶ 9, 65 P.3d 1180; Harris v. IES Assocs., 2003 UT App 112, ¶ 56, 69 P.3d 297.
¶ 10 However, rule 7(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:
(f)(1) An order includes every direction of the court, including a minute order entered in writing, not included in a judgment. ...
*440(f)(2) Unless the court approves the proposed order submitted with an initial memorandum, or unless otherwise directed by the court, the prevailing party shall, within fifteen days after the court’s decision, serve upon the other parties a proposed order in conformity with the court’s decision. Objections to the proposed order shall be filed within five days after service. The party preparing the order shall file the proposed order upon being served with an objection or upon expiration of the time to object.
Utah R. Civ. P. 7(f)(l)-(2) (emphasis added).1
¶ 11 Thus, while the clear precedent from Utah appellate courts holds that a decision of the trial court is final for purposes of appeal unless the written decision expressly requires further action, see Leatherbury, 2003 UT 2 at ¶ 9, 65 P.3d 1180; Harris, 2003 UT App 112 at ¶ 56, 69 P.3d 297, rule 7(f) contemplates that a subsequent order will be entered after every decision unless the court directs otherwise, see Utah R. Civ. P. 7(f). The presumption under the Utah Supreme Court authority is in favor of finality, while the presumption in rule 7(f) is that a further order is required. Although the case law specifically addresses the issue of finality for purposes of appeal, while the rule is concerned with appropriate procedure, the interaction between the two can lead to confusion for practitioners.
¶ 12 The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. Consequently, correctly assessing the time at which a decision becomes final for purposes of appeal is critical. Because the procedure set forth in rule 7(f) may lull practitioners into the mistaken belief that a decision of the trial court does not become final for purposes of appeal until an order is entered, clarity in the initial memorandum decision is essential. I believe the better practice for all concerned is for the decision to state expressly either that “no further order is necessary” or that the prevailing party “shall prepare an order implementing this court’s decision.”
¶ 13 I agree with the majority that the Memorandum Decision here completely resolved the substantive rights of the parties, dismissed the complaint, and did not expressly require any further action. Yet, I am sympathetic to the difficulty in assessing the proper moment when the decision becomes final for purposes of appeal when the trial court is silent on that issue.

. The substance of what is now rule 7(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure was previously contained in the Utah Code of Judicial Administration. See Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4-501 to 4-509 (noting that rule 4-504 was repealed effective November 1, 2003, and replaced with a comparable provision in the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure). Effective November 1, 2003, subpart (f) was added to rule 7 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Utah R. Civ. P. 7 & amendment notes (providing that the 2003 amendment, which added subpart (f), became effective November 1, 2003).