## Facts

- Two partnerships filed an interpleader and declaratory relief action after competing claims were made to a fund.
- The trial court entered judgment on March 19, 1990 resolving the merits of the interpleader/declaratory relief dispute.
- The March 19 judgment deferred determination and allocation of costs and allowable attorney fees to later cost-bill proceedings.
- On July 23, 1990, the trial court entered a post-judgment order taxing and allocating costs and determining allowable attorney fees.
- Nesbitt filed a notice of appeal on July 23, 1990, purporting to appeal the March 19 judgment “as modified” by the July 23 cost order.
- Wibbelsman filed a cross-appeal and moved to dismiss Nesbitt’s appeal as untimely, arguing the deadline to appeal the March 19 judgment had expired.
- Nesbitt argued the March 19 judgment was not appealable until the later cost/fee order, so his notice was timely.

## Issues

1. Whether a judgment that resolves the merits is nonfinal and nonappealable when costs and allowable attorney fees are left for later determination by cost-bill procedure.
2. Whether Nesbitt’s notice of appeal was timely as to (a) the March 19, 1990 judgment and (b) the July 23, 1990 post-judgment cost/fee order.
3. Whether the July 23, 1990 order taxing and allocating costs is a separately appealable post-judgment order.

## Decision

- The court held the March 19, 1990 judgment was final and appealable when entered, even though costs and allowable attorney fees were determined later.
- The court ruled Nesbitt’s July 23, 1990 notice of appeal was untimely as to the March 19, 1990 judgment, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to review that judgment.
- The court ruled the July 23, 1990 order on costs and allowable attorney fees was a separate, appealable post-judgment order, and the notice of appeal was timely as to that order.
- The court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal to the extent they sought review of the March 19, 1990 judgment.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss to the extent the appeal sought review of the July 23, 1990 cost/fee order and limited the appeal to that order.

## Legal Principles

- A judgment that fully disposes of the merits is final and immediately appealable even if the court later determines and allocates costs and allowable attorney fees through post-judgment cost-bill procedures.
- Post-judgment orders taxing or allocating costs and determining allowable attorney fees are collateral to the merits and are independently appealable as special orders made after final judgment.
- The time to appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; an untimely notice of appeal requires dismissal as to the judgment, regardless of later collateral cost/fee rulings.
- A later cost/fee order does not extend or restart the deadline to appeal from the underlying merits judgment.

## Conclusion

The court treated the merits judgment as final upon entry and dismissed the attempted appeal from that judgment as untimely, while allowing appellate review to proceed only as to the separately appealable post-judgment order taxing and allocating costs and allowable attorney fees.


UAP-Columbus JV 326132 v. Nesbitt, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1028, 285 Cal. Rptr. 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)