Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellants, Albert Ellis Lincicome, Jr. and Vicenta Lincicome, filed an appeal against several respondents, including Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC, challenging a permanent writ of restitution and district court orders that granted summary judgment and awarded attorney fees and costs. Breckenridge moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the order granting summary judgment was not a final judgment, as claims for slander of title, unjust enrichment, and rent or money for possession remained unresolved. The appellants claimed that Breckenridge's slander of title claim was moot and contended that the attorney fees order was appealable. However, they failed to provide a written order resolving Breckenridge’s claims. The court found that the summary judgment order did not resolve pending claims, specifically noting anticipated future orders regarding damages for overdue rents. Emphasizing that the burden of establishing jurisdiction lies with the invoking party, the court determined that without a final judgment, the attorney fees order could not be appealed. As the appellants did not address the appealability of the permanent writ of restitution and failed to establish jurisdiction, the court granted Breckenridge’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The court also declined to address requests for clarification from other respondents, instructing that such requests be made through formal motions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Orders related to attorney fees were deemed non-appealable in the absence of a final judgment.
Reasoning: Without a final judgment, the attorney fees order was not appealable as a special order after final judgment.
Burden of Establishing Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
Reasoning: The court emphasized that the burden of establishing jurisdiction lies with the party invoking it and that without a final judgment, the attorney fees order was not appealable as a special order after final judgment.
Final Judgment Requirement for Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied this principle by dismissing the appeal due to a lack of a final judgment, as unresolved claims remained.
Reasoning: The court found that the November 5, 2021 order did not resolve the claims, particularly noting it anticipated a future order regarding damages for overdue rents.
Mootness of Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants argued that Breckenridge's claim for slander of title was moot, but the court required more than just assertions to establish mootness.
Reasoning: Appellants contended that Breckenridge's claim for slander of title was moot due to the motion for attorney fees and costs.