Ulan v. Kay
Citation | 427 P.2d 376,5 Ariz.App. 395 |
Decision Date | 28 April 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
Parties | Leon ULAN and Sylvia Ulan, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Milford KAY and Edna T. Kay, husband and wife, Sidney Katz and Shirley Katz, husband and wife, and Ferdinand Reese and Dorothy Reese, husband and wife, Appellees. 396. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
William Messing, Tucson, for appellants.
Johnson, Darrow, D'Antonio, Hayes & Morales, Tucson, for appellees Kay.
Silver, Silver, Ettinger & Karp, Tucson, for appellees Katz and Reese.
The appellants were named as defendants in a suit commenced in superior court, Pima County, to recover damages for fraud. They subsequently filed a third-party complaint against the appellees. The appellees filed their respective motions for summary judgment on the ground that the claim set forth in the third-party complaint was res judicata. The motions were granted and on December 27, 1966, judgment was entered in favor of appellees Kay, and on January 10, 1967, judgment was entered in favor of appellees Katz and Reese. This appeal was timely prosecuted from both judgments.
Although neither party has raised it, we question our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. With certain exceptions not pertinent here, our sole power is to hear appeals 'from a final judgment.' A.R.S. § 12--2101, as amended. This action involves multiple claims, and when the trial court adjudicated the third-party claim and left the original claim pending, the action became controlled by Rule 54(b), as amended, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., which provides:
Nowhere in the summary 'judgments' of the trial court is there any 'express determination that there is no just reason for delay' as required by this rule. The very language of the rule negates 'finalit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pulaski v. Perkins
......2 In Ulan v. Kay, 5 Ariz.App. 395, 396 n. 1, 427 P.2d 376, 377 n.1 (1967). Division Two indicated its belief that the Eaton Fruit procedure did not apply in rule 54(b)--deficient cases. 3 Certain kinds of decisions of the superior court are appealable without a 54(b) determination even though they are not ......
-
Estate of Kerr, Matter of, 1
...... See Boone v. Estate of Nelson, 264 N.W.2d 881 (N.D.1978). The judgment was in the nature of an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. Ulan v. Kay, 5 Ariz.App. 395, 427 P.2d 376 (1967). We conclude, therefore, that the summary judgment entered by the superior court was not a final judgment under A.R.S. § 12-2101(J). As we have already observed, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, with certain exceptions, is limited to appeals ......
-
Justice Court of Tempe Precinct, Maricopa County v. Keswick
...of the divorce decree, for he has made an order which, in effect, modifies that decree, but without reference thereto. This, it would [5 Ariz.App. 395] Page 376 seem, he should not do, for defendant is now subject to two orders of the same court; one calling for the payment of a certain sum......