From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Express Recovery Services, Inc. v. Pearson

Utah Court of Appeals
Mar 7, 2002
2002 UT App. 69 (Utah Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 20010716-CA.

Filed March 7, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)

Appeal from the Third District, West Valley Department, The Honorable Pat B. Brian.

Jonathan K. Jensen and Samuel S. McHenry, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Carl Pearson, Sandy, Appellant Pro Se.

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.


MEMORANDUM DECISION


This appeal is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary affirmance. However, based upon a review of the trial court record, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court entered a default judgment against Appellant Carl Pearson on April 17, 2001. Pearson did not file a direct appeal, but he filed a "Motion to Dismiss Judgment," which the trial court construed as a motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Following Pearson's failure to appear at a hearing, the district court denied the motion in an unsigned minute entry included only in the court's docket. This ruling was not reduced to a written order signed by the trial court and filed with the clerk. See Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(b), (c). It is well-settled that "an unsigned minute entry is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal." State v. Rawlings, 829 P.2d 150, 153 (Utah Ct.App. 1992). "Absent a final order, the appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider an appeal, necessitating dismissal." Id.

Based upon the lack of a final appealable order, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Varian Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) ("When a matter is outside the court's jurisdiction, it retains only the authority to dismiss the action."). Our dismissal is without prejudice to a timely appeal filed after the entry of a signed order denying the motion to set aside the judgment.

Appellate review of an order on a rule 60(b) motion addresses only the propriety of the denial or grant of the motion and not the merits of the underlying judgment, which must be the subject of a direct appeal.See Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110,¶ 19, 2 P.3d 451.

Gregory K. Orme, Judge, William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.


Summaries of

Express Recovery Services, Inc. v. Pearson

Utah Court of Appeals
Mar 7, 2002
2002 UT App. 69 (Utah Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Express Recovery Services, Inc. v. Pearson

Case Details

Full title:Express Recovery Services, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Carl Pearson…

Court:Utah Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 7, 2002

Citations

2002 UT App. 69 (Utah Ct. App. 2002)