Musselman v. Keele
Musselman v. Keele, 2024 UT App 143 (Oliver, J.)
Jurisdiction/Appellate Procedure
Keele filed a motion for partial summary judgment on two claims against Musselman. The motion went unopposed and the district court granted it after a bench trial on damages. On appeal, Musselman argued the district court erred because material facts were still in dispute and Keele had not met his burden of proving the elements of his claims. On appeal, Keele countered by ignoring the merits of the case and instead claiming that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because Musselman failed to timely appeal. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding:
- The order granting partial summary judgment was not a final order and Musselman’s appeal from the eventual final judgment was timely, so the Utah Court of Appeals has jurisdiction on appeal.
- Keele failed to address Musselman’s arguments on appeal on the merits, and so the resulting lower standard for review in a non-merits decision applies. Here, Musselman demonstrated a plausible basis for reversal.
- Practice tip: A court may rule in favor of an appellant for purposes of that case if the appellee inadequately briefs an argument and the appellant provides a plausible basis for reversal.