In re the Marriage of Rene Stockman
Decision Date | 22 July 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 10CA0125.,10CA0125. |
Citation | 251 P.3d 541 |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Rene STOCKMAN, Appellant,andWayne Stockman, Appellee. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Rene Stockman, Pro Se.Wayne Stockman, Pro Se.Opinion by Judge DAILEY.
Upon consideration of the notice of appeal, and after reviewing the relevant order, we dismiss the appeal to this court for lack of jurisdiction.
Following a contempt hearing, the magistrate found Wayne Stockman (husband) guilty of two counts of contempt, and ordered Rene Stockman (wife) to submit an attorney fees affidavit. Upon receipt of the affidavit, the magistrate entered remedial sanctions against husband, requiring him to pay $750 of wife's attorney fees. The last line on the magistrate's order read,
Wife filed her pro se appeal directly with this court forty-three days after entry of the magistrate's order.
Although wife followed the directions provided by the magistrate to appeal directly to this court, the magistrate's C.R.M. 7(b) language in this case was inappropriate and insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon us.
This court has jurisdiction over “[a]ny order or judgment entered with the consent of the parties” that is “not subject to review under [C.R.M.] 7(a).” See C.R.M. 7(b). Conversely, any order or judgment of the magistrate entered without the consent of the parties requires district court review before an appeal to this court may lie. See C.R.M. 7(a)(1); 7(a)(5); In re Marriage of Moore, 107 P.3d 1150, 1151 (Colo.App.2005); see also C.R.M. 7(a)(12) ( ); In re Marriage of Tonn, 53 P.3d 1185 (Colo.App.2002) (same).
Here, wife appeals from an award entering attorney fees, which is a proceeding in which the magistrate may enter findings without consent of the parties. See C.R.M. 6(b)(1); see also Bryan v. Neet, 85 P.3d 556, 557 (Colo.App.2003) ( ). Thus, district court review of the magistrate's order was required before wife could seek review with this court. See C.R.M. 7(a). Accordingly, because wife did not seek district court review under C.R.M. 7(a), we have no jurisdiction and, consequently, dismiss the appeal. See C.R.M. 7(a)(1); Moore, 107 P.3d at 1151.
Wife's remedy is to seek review of the magistrate's order in the district court. Ordinarily a party must seek district court review of an order entered under Rule 7(a) within fifteen days of the date of the order. C.R.M. 7(a)(5). Thus, any request for district court review filed by wife at this point would be untimely.
However, unique circumstances permit an enlargement of time “if a party reasonably relies and acts upon an erroneous or misleading statement or ruling by the district court.” See In re C.A.B.L., 221 P.3d 433, 440 (Colo.App.2009); see also People v. Baker, 104 P.3d 893, 896 (Colo.2005) ( ).
The Colorado Rules for Magistrates create a “confusing appellate labyrinth” perplexing both counsel and pro se parties alike, leading to the dismissal of a “significant, and perhaps unacceptable” number of appeals. See C.A.B.L., 221 P.3d at 443–44 (Roy, J., specially concurring). This...
To continue reading
Request your trial- City of Colo. Springs v. Andersen Mahon Enterprises
-
In re J.H.
...doctrine in the district court to excuse the untimely filing of a petition for review in that court. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Stockman , 251 P.3d 541, 543 (Colo. App. 2010) ("[I]f [appellant] files an untimely motion seeking review, the district court should carefully consider the uniqu......
-
Appeals of County Court, Municipal Court, and Magistrate Rulings
...[104] CRM 6(c)(2). [105] CRM 6(d). [106] CRM 6(e)(1). [107] CRM 6(e)(2). [108] CRM 7(a) and (b). [109] See In re Marriage of Stockman, 251 P.3d 541, 543 (Colo.App. 2010) (“The Colorado Rules for Magistrates create a ‘confusing appellate labyrinth’ perplexing both counsel and pro se parties ......