Copier v. Copier, 970115-CA
| Decision Date | 30 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 970115-CA,970115-CA |
| Citation | 939 P.2d 202 |
| Parties | 318 Utah Adv. Rep. 9 Claudia M. COPIER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Robert H. COPIER, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Robert H. Copier, Salt Lake City, Plaintiff and Appellant pro se.
David C. Anderson, Salt Lake City, for Defendant and Appellee.
Before DAVIS, P.J., and BENCH and ORME, JJ.
Appellant Robert H. Copier appeals from a divorce decree, an order denying a motion for new trial, and an order denying objections to the commissioner's recommendation setting temporary support amounts. This appeal is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition on the basis that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no final appealable order has been entered in the case and permission to appeal from an interlocutory order was neither sought nor granted. We dismiss the appeal.
The proceedings were bifurcated in the district court. The court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a decree of divorce on September 19, 1996. The decree dissolved the marriage, effective in six months, but reserved all remaining issues for trial.
Because the district court has continuing jurisdiction in divorce proceedings under Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (1995), several orders in a single divorce proceeding may be final and appealable. "[T]he district court, which has continuing jurisdiction after entry of a final divorce decree, may adjudicate a petition to modify the decree due to a change of circumstances while the decree is pending on appeal since the petition for modification is collateral to the divorce decree." White v. State, 795 P.2d 648, 650 (Utah 1990) (per curiam) (citing Peters v. Peters, 15 Utah 2d 413, 416-17, 394 P.2d 71, 73 (1964)). However, the decree in this case is not a final divorce decree, and the ongoing proceedings are not within the court's continuing jurisdiction under section 30-3-5.
The divorce decree entered in the bifurcated proceedings was not a final divorce decree because it did not resolve the controversy between the parties and conclude the divorce litigation. See Salt Lake City v. Layton, 600 P.2d 538, 539-40 (Utah 1979) () (citing J.B. & R.E. Walker, Inc. v. Thayn, 17 Utah 2d 120, 121, 405 P.2d 342, 343 (1965) (per curiam)). A party seeking to appeal the initial ruling in a bifurcated proceeding must obtain certification of the judgment or order as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Parker
...1983) (explaining that dissolution and child custody issues were tried before property division and support issues); Copier v. Copier, 939 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (noting that dissolution claim was bifurcated from all other issues in divorce action). "The severance of the divorce a......
-
Davis v. Davis, 20000433-CA.
...appealable order because it resolved the controversy between Father and Mother and ended the divorce litigation. See Copier v. Copier, 939 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct.App. 1997). Because Father lost custody of K.D. in a final factual determination of custody, he also lost his parental presumptio......
-
Colleli v. Colleli, 2004 UT App 318 (UT 9/16/2004)
...& Supp. 2003). As a result, "several orders in a single divorce proceeding may be final and appealable." Copier v. Copier, 939 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (per curiam). Postjudgment orders "are independently subject to the test of finality, according to their own substance and effect......
-
Doyle v. Doyle, 2006 UT App 379 (Utah App. 9/21/2006)
...37 P.3d 1070. In domestic cases, several orders in a divorce proceeding may be final and appealable. See Copier v. Copier, 939 P.2d 202, 203 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (per curiam). But, for an order to be final, even in a divorce case, it must end the specific controversy between the parties. Se......