From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re People in Interest of A. A. T.

Court of Appeals of Colorado, First Division
Dec 18, 1973
517 P.2d 403 (Colo. App. 1973)

Opinion

         Dec. 18, 1973

         Editorial Note:

         This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.

         Faricy, Tursi, Phelps & Shepherd, Dale P. Tursi, Pueblo, for petitioner-appellee.


         Lee N. Sternal, Pueblo, for respondent-appellant.

         RULAND, Judge.

          Respondent appeals from an order entered in a trial to the district court determining that he is the father of A. A. T. The appeal must be dismissed because the order appealed from is not a final judgment.

         The petition filed by D. K. T. requested: (1) A judgment determining paternity; and (2) that respondent be ordered to pay support. The trial court determined that respondent was the father of A. A. T. and that:

'(T)his matter be continued for the entry of a support order without day, the same to be submitted to the Court either upon written stipulation or for the taking of additional testimony at the motion of the People.'

         Respondent then filed a notice of appeal with the trial court and proceeded with his appeal to this court. The trial court did not direct entry of final judgment and did not determine that there was no just reason for delay as provided in C.R.C.P. 54(b). Thus, the order is not appealable.

         In Morron v. McDaniel, 127 Colo. 180, 254 P.2d 862, our Supreme Court quoted with approval the test stated in Dusing v. Nelson, 7 Colo. 184, 2 P. 922, that:

'If the order entered in a cause does not put an end to the action, but leaves something further to be done before the rights of the parties are determined, it is interlocutory, and not final. To be final it must end the particular suit in which it is entered.'

          Although the question whether the order of paternity constituted a final judgment was raised by petitioner but not urged as grounds for dismissing the appeal, the court is obligated to take cognizance of the record as presented. See Schtul v. Christ, 132 Colo. 293, 287 P.2d 661. Since the court has not yet determined all issues in this case, the order appealed from is not a final judgment, and the appeal must be dismissed. C.A.R. 1(a)(1); Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601.

         Appeal dismissed.

         SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and ENOCH, J., concur.


Summaries of

In re People in Interest of A. A. T.

Court of Appeals of Colorado, First Division
Dec 18, 1973
517 P.2d 403 (Colo. App. 1973)
Case details for

In re People in Interest of A. A. T.

Case Details

Full title:In re People in Interest of A. A. T.

Court:Court of Appeals of Colorado, First Division

Date published: Dec 18, 1973

Citations

517 P.2d 403 (Colo. App. 1973)