Marriage of Warner, In re, 85CA0444
| Decision Date | 09 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA0444,85CA0444 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Sharon Lyn WARNER, Appellee, and Ronald Lee Warner, Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Bettenberg, Miller, Makkai & Dowdle, Robert T. Bettenberg, Denver, for appellee.
Holley, Albertson & Polk, P.C., Dennis B. Polk, Golden, for appellant.
Ronald Lee Warner (father) appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate a writ of continuing garnishment obtained by Sharon Lyn Warner (mother) to collect a judgment for child support arrearages. We affirm.
The trial court entered judgment for child support arrearages on December 13, 1983. No motions under C.R.C.P. 59 or 60 were filed. A writ of continuing garnishment was issued on September 17, 1984. On December 21, 1984, more than one year after entry of the judgment, the father filed a traverse to the writ designated as a "motion to vacate". He did so based on the theory that the court did not have jurisdiction to enter the judgment in the first instance. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
On appeal, the father contends that the judgment for child support arrearages was void because it represented a retrospective award of child support not permitted by the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act. We do not find any merit in this argument.
Even if we assume, arguendo, that the father is correct in his assertion that the judgment represented a retrospective award of child support, this would not render the judgment for the arrearages void. It would merely establish a basis on which the father could seek to have the judgment modified or set aside on appeal or other appropriate proceeding. Thus, at most the judgment would be voidable, not void.
Whether a judgment is void depends on the court's jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter involved. In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168 (Colo.1981); McLeod v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Co., 186 Colo. 234, 526 P.2d 1318 (1974). The father does not challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person, and there is no basis for his contention that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Hence, pursuant to the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter a judgment against him for any arrearages that may have accrued in child support payments. See Sauls v. Sauls, 40 Colo.App. 275, 577 P.2d 771 (1977).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, N.A.
... ... 59 motion. See In re Marriage of Warner, 719 P.2d 363, 364 (Colo. App. 1986) (party may seek to alter, amend, or vacate judgment ... ...
-
In re Davidson
... ... Engleman, 145 Colo. 299, 358 P.2d 864 (1961); In re Marriage of Walsh, 44 Colo.App. 502, 614 P.2d 913 (1980); In re Marriage of Warner, 719 P.2d 363 ... ...
-
Tognoni v. Cross
...313 P.3d 655In re the MARRIAGE OF David Q. TOGNONI, Appellant and CrossAppellee,andPatricia A. Tognoni, Appellee and ... See In re Marriage of Warner, 719 P.2d 363, 36465 (Colo.App.1986) (trial court did not abuse discretion by refusing to vacate ... ...
-
Marriage of Jacobs, In re, 92CA1314
... ... See In re Marriage ... of Warner, 719 P.2d 363 (Colo.App.1986); In re Marriage of Franklin, 634 P.2d 1032 (Colo.App.1981); see also Schaffer v. District Court, 172 Colo. 43, 470 ... ...
-
RULE 59
...by appropriate motion under either this rule or C.R.C.P. 60. Cortvriendt v. Cortvriendt, 146 Colo. 387, 361 P.2d 767 (1961); In re Warner, 719 P.2d 363 (Colo. App. 1986). Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the summary judgment determination must be characterized as a motion for new trial unde......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...by appropriate motion under either this rule or C.R.C.P. 60. Cortvriendt v. Cortvriendt, 146 Colo. 387, 361 P.2d 767 (1961); In re Warner, 719 P.2d 363 (Colo. App. 1986). Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the summary judgment determination must be characterized as a motion for new trial unde......
-
ARTICLE 10
...to husband, enter judgment for arrearages in child support payments. Sauls v. Sauls, 40 Colo. App. 275, 577 P.2d 771 (1977); In re Warner, 719 P.2d 363 (Colo. App. 1986). Formerly, terms of agreement not subject to modification absent court's reservation of such powers. Where a separation a......
-
Rule 59 MOTIONS FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF.
...by appropriate motion under either this rule or C.R.C.P. 60. Cortvriendt v. Cortvriendt, 146 Colo. 387, 361 P.2d 767 (1961); In re Warner, 719 P.2d 363 (Colo. App. 1986). Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the summary judgment determination must be characterized as a motion for new trial unde......