Utah Supreme Court

When does the appeal period begin for judgments that award attorney fees? Sittner v. Schriever Explained

2000 UT 45
No. 981776
May 19, 2000
Reversed

Summary

Sittner filed a notice of appeal from a judgment dismissing his complaint and awarding attorney fees, but did not file until after a supplemental judgment fixed the fee amount. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely under Taylor v. Hansen, which held that the appeal period begins when judgment is entered even if attorney fee amounts remain undetermined.

Analysis

In Sittner v. Schriever, the Utah Supreme Court resolved an important timing issue that frequently arises in civil litigation: when does the appeal period begin for judgments that award attorney fees but reserve the amount for later determination?

Background and Facts

After obtaining a judgment against Gildea, Sittner filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to enforce his judgment lien following Gildea’s bankruptcy discharge. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on March 25, 1997, dismissing Sittner’s complaint and awarding attorney fees, but expressly reserved the amount of fees for later determination. A supplemental judgment fixing the fee amount was entered on June 27, 1997, but was later vacated due to irregularities in the stipulation process. The trial court entered a final supplemental judgment on October 21, 1997. Sittner filed his notice of appeal on November 14, 1997.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Sittner’s appeal was timely. The court of appeals had dismissed the appeal, relying on Taylor v. Hansen, which held that the appeal period begins when judgment is entered even if attorney fee amounts remain undetermined.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court overruled Taylor and established a new rule based on ProMax Development Corp. v. Raile. The court held that “in the interest of judicial economy, a trial court must determine the amount of attorney fees awardable to a party before the judgment becomes final for the purposes of an appeal.” Since the March 25 judgment failed to fix the fee amount, it was not final for appeal purposes until the October 21 supplemental judgment was entered.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for appellate practitioners. When a judgment awards attorney fees but reserves the amount for later determination, the appeal period does not begin until the supplemental judgment fixing the fee amount is entered. Practitioners should not feel compelled to file premature appeals from incomplete judgments, but should wait for the final determination of all awarded amounts before filing their notice of appeal.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Sittner v. Schriever

Citation

2000 UT 45

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 981776

Date Decided

May 19, 2000

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A judgment that awards attorney fees but fails to fix the amount is not final for purposes of appeal until the trial court determines the fee amount.

Standard of Review

Correctness for legal conclusions of the court of appeals

Practice Tip

When attorney fees are awarded in a judgment but the amount is reserved for later determination, wait until the supplemental judgment fixing the fee amount is entered before filing your notice of appeal.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    J.S. v. State of Utah

    May 30, 1997

    Juvenile courts may not base dispositional orders solely on double hearsay evidence in pre-disposition reports and must allow parents the opportunity to testify and be heard at dispositional hearings.
    • DCFS and Child Welfare
    • |
    • Due Process
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. McCallie

    January 7, 2016

    A prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s post-Miranda silence violates due process, but the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the comment is isolated.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    Read More
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.