Utah Court of Appeals
When can Utah practitioners appeal intervention orders? Berg v. Richards Brandt Miller Nelson Explained
Summary
Berg appealed the district court’s order granting RBMN permission to intervene to enforce an attorney lien and the denial of reconsideration. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because orders granting intervention are interlocutory and not final appealable judgments.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Berg v. Richards Brandt Miller Nelson clarified important jurisdictional principles regarding the appealability of intervention orders, providing crucial guidance for practitioners navigating appellate procedure in cases involving third-party intervention.
Background and Facts
Darrin Berg appealed two district court orders: one granting Richards Brandt Miller Nelson (RBMN) permission to intervene to enforce an attorney lien, and another denying reconsideration under Rule 60(b). RBMN had moved to intervene pursuant to Utah Code section 38-2-7, which allows attorneys to enforce liens by intervening in pending legal actions where they have performed work. The underlying case remained pending in the district court for resolution of the attorney lien issues.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the district court’s order granting RBMN’s motion to intervene constituted a final appealable order or an interlocutory order requiring permission to appeal. The court also addressed whether denial of a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order could itself be final and appealable.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court emphasized that Utah appellate courts lack jurisdiction unless an appeal is taken from a final judgment or qualifies for an exception to the final judgment rule. While orders denying intervention are final and immediately appealable, orders granting intervention are interlocutory and not appealable as a matter of right. The court distinguished federal precedent that Berg relied upon, noting that Utah courts have rejected the collateral order doctrine. Additionally, denial of a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order cannot transform that order into a final appealable judgment.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the asymmetrical treatment of intervention orders in Utah appellate practice. Practitioners should note that while denials of intervention are immediately appealable, grants of intervention require either waiting for final judgment or seeking permission for interlocutory appeal under Rule 5. The ruling also clarifies that motions to reconsider interlocutory orders do not create new opportunities for immediate appeal, maintaining the integrity of the final judgment rule in Utah’s appellate system.
Case Details
Case Name
Berg v. Richards Brandt Miller Nelson
Citation
2016 UT App 16
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150974-CA
Date Decided
January 22, 2016
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
An order granting intervention is interlocutory and not immediately appealable unless the underlying case has already concluded.
Standard of Review
Not applicable – jurisdictional dismissal
Practice Tip
When seeking to appeal intervention orders, remember that only denials of intervention are immediately appealable—grants of intervention require waiting for a final judgment or seeking permission for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 5.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.