
    2012 UT App 59
    Gary T. RICHARDS and Clara Rita Richards, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. M & M CAPITAL, LLC; Matthew Curtis; eTitle Insurance Agency; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp.; and Jane and John Does 1-10, Defendants and Appellees.
    No. 20110999-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    Feb. 24, 2012.
    JoAnn S. Seerist-Bess, Parowan, for Appellants.
    Jenny T. Jones and Kimball A. Forbes, St. George, for Appellee M & M Capital, LLC.
    James D. Gilson and J. Tayler Fox, Salt Lake City, for Appellees Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA.
    Before Judges ORME, THORNE, and CHRISTIANSEN.
   DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Gary T. and Clara Rita Richards appeal the district court's October 7, 2011 order. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice.

T 2 Generally, "(aln appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, ¶ 9, 5 P.3d 649. Indeed, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal unless it is taken from a final, appealable order. See id. T8. For an order to be a final, appealable order, the order must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. 110. The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the cireumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (8) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. 112.

13 On July 29, 2011, Appellee M & M Capital, LLC, filed an unlawful detainer action seeking an order of restitution to remove the Richardses from the subject property as well as requesting an award of monetary damages. The unlawful detainer action was consolidated with a separate lawsuit that had been filed by the Richardses. On October 7, 2011, the district court entered an order of restitution requiring the Richardses to vacate the property. However, the claim for monetary damages remains pending before the district court. Thus, the October 7, 2011 order "does not dispose of all parties or claims to the action." Id. 110. The parties also fail to demonstrate that this appeal qualifies for any exception to the final judgment rule.

T4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order.  