Opinion
No. 2 CA-CV 2016-0199-FC
09-05-2017
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF RODERICK EASLEY, Petitioner/Appellee, and OFELIA EASLEY, Respondent/Appellant.
COUNSEL Law Office of Hector A. Montoya, P.L.L.C., Tucson By Hector A. Montoya Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Law Office of Mark L. Williams, Nogales By Mark L. Williams Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
No. D20152576
The Honorable Christopher C. Browning, Judge
APPEAL DISMISSED
COUNSEL Law Office of Hector A. Montoya, P.L.L.C., Tucson
By Hector A. Montoya
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Law Office of Mark L. Williams, Nogales
By Mark L. Williams
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Judge Kelly concurred. ECKERSTROM, Chief Judge:
The Hon. Virginia C. Kelly, a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and our supreme court. --------
¶1 Ofelia Easley ("Mother") appeals the trial court's order directing which school her minor son will attend and allocating parenting time between her and Roderick Easley ("Father"). Because we do not have jurisdiction, we dismiss her appeal.
¶2 We have "an independent duty to examine whether we have jurisdiction over matters on appeal." Camasura v. Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶ 5, 358 P.3d 600, 602 (App. 2015). With limited exceptions, this court's jurisdiction is restricted to appeals from final judgments that dispose of all claims as to all parties. See In re Marriage of Johnson and Gravino, 231 Ariz. 228, ¶ 5, 293 P.3d 504, 506 (App. 2012); see A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). Also appealable are "special order[s] made after final judgment," A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2), and judgments resolving less than "all of the claims . . . upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 78(B). Otherwise, "a family court ruling that resolves some but not all of the issues pending before the court . . . is not final and appealable." Natale v. Natale, 234 Ariz. 507, ¶ 9, 323 P.3d 1158, 1160 (App. 2014).
¶3 Here, the trial court issued its October 24, 2016 order resolving school choice and parenting time within the context of Mother and Father's ongoing legal separation and dissolution proceedings. Thus, the order from which Mother appeals was not final because, at the very least, it left unresolved the parties' underlying legal separation and dissolution. See Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶ 7, 358 P.3d at 602-03. Also, because the record on appeal does not indicate entry of a judgment granting legal separation or dissolving the underlying marriage, the order was not a special order made after final judgment. See A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2). Finally, the order did not expressly determine no just reason for delay existed or direct that judgment be entered. Because we determine we do not have jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.