{"id":559,"date":"2014-01-07T01:35:13","date_gmt":"2014-01-07T01:35:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=559"},"modified":"2023-01-23T10:16:03","modified_gmt":"2023-01-23T15:16:03","slug":"final-judgment-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/final-judgment-rule\/final-judgment-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"THE FINAL JUDGMENT RULE"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Image<\/a>

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net<\/p><\/div>\n

This term, the Rhode Island Supreme Court spilled much ink on the final judgment rule.\u00a0 See<\/i> Maciel v. Davey, No. 2012-222-Appeal<\/a> and Baker v. Mitchell, No. 2013-17-Appeal<\/a>.\u00a0 In two orders the Court dismissed interlocutory appeals based on the appellant\u2019s failure to appeal from a final judgment.\u00a0 This edition of the Fast Five on Rhode Island Appellate Practice is devoted to the \u201cfinal judgment rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

(1)\u00a0\u00a0 APPEALS TO THE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT MUST SATISFY THE \u201cFINAL JUDGMENT RULE.\u201d\u00a0 <\/b><\/h3>\n

As a general rule, orders entered by a trial court are not appealable until the case has concluded and a final judgment has entered.\u00a0 This principle, known as the \u201cfinal judgment rule,\u201d is codified at R.I. Gen. Laws \u00a7 9-24-1, which provides that an appeal may be taken only from a \u201cfinal judgment, decree or order of the superior court.\u201d\u00a0 The rule is premised on notions of judicial efficiency and is designed to prevent the piecemeal adjudication of disputes.\u00a0 See R.I. Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Parking Co., L.P.<\/i>, 892 A.2d 87, 95 (R.I. 2006) (citing Industrial Nat\u2019l Bank v. Colt<\/i>, 224 A.2d 900, 902 (R.I. 1966)).<\/p>\n

(2)\u00a0\u00a0 COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT RULE.<\/b><\/h3>\n

There are both common law and statutory exceptions to the final judgment rule.\u00a0 The Court \u201cmay hear an appeal from an interlocutory order if public policy considerations warrant or if immediate action is necessary in order to avoid imminent and irreparable harm.\u201d\u00a0 Furtado v. Laferriere<\/i>, 839 A.2d 533, 536 (R.I. 2004) (citing Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. v. Dial Media, Inc.<\/i>, 410 A.2d 986, 989 (R.I. 1980)).\u00a0 In addition, an interlocutory order may be considered final for purposes of appeal if the order (1) grants or continues an injunction, (2) appoints a receiver, (3) orders the sale of real or personal property or (4) orders or denies a new trial after a trial by jury.\u00a0 R.I. Gen. Laws \u00a7 9-24-7.<\/p>\n

Correspondingly, Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure allows an interlocutory order in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties to be certified as an appealable final order if the Superior Court determines that there is no just reason for delay.\u00a0Furtado<\/i>, 839 A.2d at 536 (citing R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).<\/p>\n

(3)\u00a0\u00a0 APPEAL FROM GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ONE DEFENDANT DEEMED INTERLOCUTORY WITHOUT ENTRY OF RULE 54(<\/b>b) JUDGMENT. <\/b><\/h3>\n

In an order this term, the Rhode Island Supreme Court made clear that an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of only one of multiple defendants is interlocutory in nature unless judgment has entered in favor of that defendant pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).\u00a0 Maciel v. Davey, No. 2012-222-Appeal<\/a>.\u00a0 In Maciel<\/i>, the Superior Court granted one defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment but denied that defendant\u2019s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 1.\u00a0 Although final judgment never entered, the plaintiff filed an appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

After a Rule 12A conference, the Supreme Court dismissed plaintiff\u2019s appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2.\u00a0 In doing so, the Court noted that \u201c[a]n appeal from an order that grants a motion for summary judgment is considered interlocutory and not final for purposes of appeal.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 1 (citing<\/i> Furtado<\/i>, 839 A.2d at 536).<\/p>\n

While the Court \u201cmay hear an appeal from an interlocutory order if public policy considerations warrant or if immediate action is necessary in order to avoid imminent and irreparable harm,\u201d none of those exceptions were implicated in Maciel<\/i>.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2.<\/p>\n

(4)\u00a0\u00a0 APPEAL FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER DISMISSED WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT HAD NOT ENTERED.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/h3>\n

In Baker v. Mitchell, No. 2013-17-Appeal<\/a>, the Supreme Court denied and dismissed the defendant\u2019s appeal and remanded the record to the Superior Court after concluding that the final judgment rule was not satisfied.<\/p>\n

In the underlying partition action, the Superior Court entered an order continuing a hearing on a motion to sell the property at issue and, in doing so, stated that no further continuances would be allowed without the potential for sanctions.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 1.\u00a0 One of the defendants appealed from that order, maintaining that the conditions set forth in the Superior Court\u2019s order were unwarranted and prejudicial.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2.<\/p>\n

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the defendant\u2019s appeal was interlocutory and, therefore, not reviewable at this time.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 In doing so, the Court emphasized that it \u201chas steadfastly maintained that, with very few exceptions, \u2018it will entertain a direct appeal only from a final judgment,\u2019\u201d that completely terminates the litigation between the parties.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2 (quoting Martino v. Ronci<\/i>, 667 A.2d 287, 288 (R.I. 1995)).<\/p>\n

While there is an exception for orders of the sale of real or personal property, such exception was inapplicable because the Superior Court\u2019s order merely continued the date for the sale of real property and, consequently, an order directing that the property be sold had not entered.\u00a0 Therefore, defendant\u2019s interlocutory appeal was improper.<\/p>\n

(5)\u00a0\u00a0 DID YOU KNOW?\u00a0 <\/b><\/h3>\n

A final judgment must be set forth on a separate document.\u00a0 See<\/i> R.I. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 58(a); see also Furtado<\/i>, 839 A.2d at 535-36. \u00a0A notice of appeal from a final judgment encompasses not only the judgment, but also all earlier interlocutory orders that merger into the judgment.\u00a0 See Greensleeves, Inc. v. Smiley<\/i>, 942 A.2d 284, 290 (R.I. 2007).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This term, the Rhode Island Supreme Court spilled much ink on the final judgment rule.\u00a0 See Maciel v. Davey, No. 2012-222-Appeal and Baker v. Mitchell, No. 2013-17-Appeal.\u00a0 In two orders the Court dismissed interlocutory appeals based on the appellant\u2019s failure to appeal…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[72],"tags":[7,18,71,14],"class_list":["post-559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-final-judgment-rule","tag-appeals","tag-appellate-practice","tag-final-judgment-rule","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}