From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In Matter of Hollis

Utah Court of Appeals
Jun 19, 2008
2008 UT App. 236 (Utah Ct. App. 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 20080330-CA.

Filed June 19, 2008. Not For Official Publication

Appeal from the Second District, Ogden Department, 073900193 The Honorable Pamela G. Heffernan.

Robert V. Phillips, Ogden, for Appellants.

Troy T. Wilson and Margaret H. Olson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and McHugh.


MEMORANDUM DECISION


Appellants, several heirs to the estate of Maxine Hollis, (Heirs) appeal the district court's March 18, 2008 order regarding the sale of certain real property. This matter is before the court on the Conservator's, Stagg Eldercare Services, motion for summary disposition based upon the lack of a final appealable order. See Utah R. App. P. 10.

This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final judgment or order, see id. 3(a), or qualifies for an exception to the final judgment rule. See Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶¶ 10, 15, 37 P.3d 1070. An order is final only if it disposes of the case as to all parties and "finally dispose[s] of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of the case." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The order appealed from is not a final appealable order because it does not dispose of all issues in the litigation. The order did not resolve any issue between the parties. Instead, it simply indicated that the Heirs had not effectively contested the sale of certain real property by the conservator, and that the court could make no order regarding the sale of the property until such time as the Heirs properly contested the sale. As such, the order did not finally dispose of the issues involved in the litigation. Further, the Heirs have not demonstrated that this order qualifies for any exception to the final judgment rule. See Loffredo, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 15. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. When this court lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the appeal. See id. ¶ 11.

This appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal after a final judgment has been entered.

James Z. Davis, Judge, Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge.


Summaries of

In Matter of Hollis

Utah Court of Appeals
Jun 19, 2008
2008 UT App. 236 (Utah Ct. App. 2008)
Case details for

In Matter of Hollis

Case Details

Full title:In the matter of Maxine Hollis, a protected person. Jacque Hollis, Ervin…

Court:Utah Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 19, 2008

Citations

2008 UT App. 236 (Utah Ct. App. 2008)

Citing Cases

Landrum v. Taylor

" (Syl. ¶¶ 1 and 2.) The foregoing principles have been applied by this court in a long line of cases. (See,…

Kandlik v. Hudek

I know of no case in this State supporting a contrary view. In the following cases, a dispute or uncertainty…