Gardella's Marriage, In re, 74--298
| Decision Date | 22 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--298,74--298 |
| Citation | 536 P.2d 862,36 Colo.App. 53 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF John Raymond GARDELLA, Petitioner-Appellee, and Judith Ousley Gardella, Respondent-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Irvin L. Mason, Durango, for petitioner-appellee.
Pendleton, Sabian, Guthery, & Lewis, P.C., D. Craig Lewis, Denver, for respondent-appellant.
Respondent appeals from a judgment of dissolution of marriage and permanent orders and from an order striking her motions for new trial and extension of time. A discussion of but one issue is dispositive of this appeal in that it concerns our jurisdiction.
On June 25, 1974, the appellant filed her motion for new trial and a motion for extension of time in which to file the motion for new trial with the district court. The record shows entry in the judgment docket on May 15, 1974, of the decree of dissolution which contained final disposition of all issues raised at trial. The trial court was under the impression that entry had been made on May 28, 1974. The court struck both the motions on the basis that the filing some 28 days after entry of judgment could not be allowed. The court was correct in its ruling even though it made its calculation from the wrong date.
A motion for new trial must be filed within 10 days after entry of judgment in the judgment docket unless a timely extension is obtained. C.R.C.P. 59(b). After expiration of the time allowed by the rule, the district court has no jurisdiction to entertain any motions for extension or motions for new trial, and such motions should be stricken. Niles v. Shinkle, 119 Colo. 458, 204 P.2d 1077. The rule requiring timely filing of the motion for new trial where the trial involved controverted issues of fact is mandatory. Failure to comply therewith requires a dismissal of the appeal. Rueckhaus v. Snow, 167 Colo. 51, 445 P.2d 577.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial