Opinion
Case No. 20060716-CA.
Filed September 21, 2006.
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, 034903528 The Honorable Denise P. Lindberg.
Steve S. Christensen and Jeffrey J. Steele, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Suzanne Marelius, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Davis, McHugh, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Douglas Patrick Doyle (Husband) appeals the trial court's minute entry denying his motion to clarify and denying, with one exception, his objections to the commissioner's recommendations. This is before the court on Robin Elaine Doyle's (Wife) motion for summary disposition based on lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final order.
Generally, this court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal unless it is taken from a final judgment or order. See Loffredo v. Holt, 2001 UT 97, ¶ 10, 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. See id.; see also Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶ 12.
Husband asserts that the signed minute entry is a final order because it was a final interpretation of a prior order. However, the minute entry did not finally determine any substantive rights of the parties nor end the litigation. See Harris v. IES Assocs., Inc., 2003 UT App 112, ¶ 56, 69 P.3d 297. The pending controversy between the parties is Wife's petition to modify the divorce decree. The minute entry noted that the petition was pending and continued temporary orders until the final determination of the petition. In addition, the court denied Husband's motion to clarify the decree, noting that the issue and arguments raised had already been addressed. In sum, the minute entry did not finally dispose of any part of the litigation, nor did it adjudicate the substantive rights of the parties. It was clearly an interlocutory order rather than a final order subject to appeal. Because the minute entry is not a final order, this court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See Loffredo, 2001 UT 97 at ¶ 11.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the timely filing of a notice of appeal after the entry of a final order.
WE CONCUR: James Z. Davis, Judge, Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge.