United States v. Indrelunas 8212 805, No. 72

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 36 L.Ed.2d 202,93 S.Ct. 1562,411 U.S. 216
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. Aphonse T. INDRELUNAS. —805
• Docket Number: No. 72
• Decision Date: 16 April 1973

36 L.Ed.2d 202 93 S.Ct. 1562 411 U.S. 216 UNITED STATES

v.

Aphonse T. INDRELUNAS.

No. 72—805. Decided April 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

The Government, petitioner here, appealed to the Court of Appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent entered by the District Court on February 25, 1971. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that final judgment had been entered in the action prior to February 25, 1971, and that therefore the Government's appeal was untimely under the provisions of Fed.Rule App.Proc. 4. Foiles v. United States, 465 F.2d 163 (CA7 1972). Since both parties implicitly concede that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals was based on the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, making final decisions of the district courts appealable, the correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision depends on whether the District Court's judgment of February 25, 1971, was a final decision.¹ That question, in turn, depends on whether actions taken in the District Court previous to

Page 217

the February date amounted to the 'entry of judgment' as that term is used in Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 58.²

Rule 58 provides in pertinent part that '(e)very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document.' There was admittedly no such separate document filed in the District Court in this case prior to the February date, but the Court of Appeals held that the 'separate document' requirement of Rule 58 was applicable only to those judgments described in clause (2) of the first sentence of the Rule, and that since the relief granted by the District Court in this action was not within the description contained in that clause, a 'separate document' was not essential to the existence of a judgment. The Court of Appeals stated in its opinion that its holding was contrary to holdings of the Courts of Appeals for the Third. Fifth, and Tenth Circuits, respectively. 465 F.2d, at 167.³ A conflict on an issue

Page 218

such as this is of importance and concern to every litigant in a federal court, since, as this case makes clear, the timeliness of appeals, as well as the timeliness of post-trial motions, may turn on the question of when judgment is entered. Consideration of the petition for certiorari and the response has led us to conclude that further briefs and oral arguments would not materially assist in our disposition of the case and, for the reasons hereafter stated, we grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The underlying dispute between the Government and respondent related to the latter's liability to pay withholding taxes due from a corporation in which he was an officer. Respondent and one Foiles, a fellow corporate officer, were assessed for the unpaid taxes, made partial payments on the assessments, and then unsuccessfully pursued administrative remedies seeking a refund. At the conclusion of these efforts Foiles sued in the District Court for a refund. The Government answered, counter claimed against Foiles for the balance due on the assessment, and filed a third-party complaint seeking like recovery against respondent. Issue was joined, trial had to a jury, and verdicts in the following form were returned in favor of both taxpayers:

'We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Harry H. Foiles, and against the defendant, United States of America, in the amount claimed. . . .

'We, the jury, find against the defendant, United States of America, on the counterclaim, and in favor of the plaintiff, Harry H. Foiles. . . .

'We, the jury, find against the third-party plaintiff, United States of America, and in favor of the third-party defendant, Alphonse T. Indrelunas.'

Page 219

The District Court's civil docket entry following the recital of these forms of verdict contains the language 'Enter judgment on the verdicts. Jury discharged.'

There was apparently no agreement as to the exact amount respondent and Foiles were to receive pursuant to the jury's verdict at the time it was returned. On May 14, 1970, some 14 months later, a stipulation was filed...