BA Leasing Corp. v. Board of Assessment Appeals of State of Colo., 82CA0042
| Decision Date | 09 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA0042,82CA0042 |
| Citation | 653 P.2d 80 |
| Parties | BA LEASING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS OF the STATE OF COLORADO and Martin E. Risch, Henry F. Shriver and Lee R. Woolsey, in their capacities as members of the Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado, and the Board of Equalization of the County of Arapahoe and John Nicholl, Charles Pitts and Thomas Eggert, in their capacities as members of the Arapahoe County Board of Equalization and the County Commissioners of Arapahoe County, and Allen Black, in his official capacity as the Assessor of Arapahoe County, and Paul Wolf, in his capacity as Treasurer of Arapahoe County, and the County of Arapahoe, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gorsuch, Kirgis, Campbell, Walker & Grover, Stephen Klein, Ann E. DeVine, Vicki J. Fowler, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Peter Lawrence Vana, III, James E. Heiser, Littleton, for defendants-appellees.
J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Billy Shuman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellee Bd. of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colo.
Pursuant to § 39-8-108(2), C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.) and § 24-4-106(4), C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum.Supp.), plaintiff, BA Leasing Corporation, sought review in the district court of a tax assessment decision made by defendant Board of Assessment Appeals. More than one year after the filing of the complaint, the Arapahoe County defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to C.R.C.P. 41(b)(1). Plaintiff appeals the trial court's dismissal of the action. We affirm.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in failing to make fact findings as required by C.R.C.P. 41(b)(1). However, the rule requires fact findings only if there has been a trial and the court has rendered judgment against the plaintiff on the merits. Thus, although the trial court did not make fact findings here, there was no error.
The decision whether there has been a failure to prosecute which warrants dismissal lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Village, 147 Colo. 190, 362 P.2d 1050 (1961). The burden is on the plaintiff to prosecute a case in due course and without unusual delays. Cervi, supra. In this case, plaintiff slept on its rights for over a year without even filing in the district court the record of the proceedings before the Board. In the absence of mitigating circumstances, this period of inaction is sufficient to justify dismissal of the action.
Plaintiff argues that its diligent attempt to resolve assessment questions in another action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake Meredith Reservoir Co. v. Amity Mut. Irr. Co.
...995, 998 (1963); Cervi v. Town of Greenwood Village, 147 Colo. 190, 193, 362 P.2d 1050, 1052 (1961); BA Leasing Corp. v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 653 P.2d 80, 81 (Colo.App.1982). The burden is upon the plaintiff to prosecute a case in due course without unusual or unreasonable delay. Ce......
-
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC
...plaintiff has not shown a right to relief is within the discretion of the trial court. BA Leasing Corp. v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 653 P.2d 80, 81 (Colo.App.1982). However, whether strict compliance applies to redemption procedures is a question of statutory interpretation subject to d......
-
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, Court of Appeals No. 08CA2009 (Colo. App. 1/7/2010), Court of Appeals No. 08CA2009.
...because the plaintiff has not shown a right to relief is within the discretion of the trial court. BA Leasing Corp. v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 653 P.2d 80, 81 (Colo. App. 1982). However, whether strict compliance applies to redemption procedures is a question of statutory interpretatio......
-
Concerning The Application for Water Rights of Donna Joyce Streu v. The City of Colo. SPRINGS
...failure to prosecute. 5A showing of prejudice is not required to dismiss for failure to prosecute. See BA Leasing Corp. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 653 P.2d 80, 82 (Colo.App.1982) (“It is unnecessary for the party moving to dismiss to show inconvenience or injury suffered by reason of the......
-
Rule 41 DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS.
...The burden is on the plaintiff to prosecute a case in due course and without unusual delays. BA Leasing Corp. v. Bd. of Assmt. Appeals, 653 P.2d 80 (Colo. App. 1982). It is not the defendant's duty to make any move whatever, except such as the law requires him to make in response to the ste......