Triebelhorn v. Turzanski
| Decision Date | 26 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 19751,19751 |
| Parties | Edward TRIEBELHORN, Plaintiff in Error, v. Katie TURZANSKI, as Administratrix of the Estate of Alice Triebelhorn, deceased, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John T. Dugan, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Mellman, Mellman & Thorn, Denver, for defendant in error.
Alice Triebelhorn brought an action against her husband, Edward Triebelhorn, seeking a divorce on the grounds of extreme and repeated acts of cruelty. We shall hereafter refer to these parties as 'Alice' and 'Edward'.
On June 12, 1950 after a non-contested trial to the court Alice was granted an interlocutory decree in divorce, the decree reciting, in part, that custody of the three minor children of the parties was awarded to her with visitation rights granted to Edward, who in turn was ordered to pay into the registry of the court forty-five dollars every two weeks for the support of the minor children. The interlocutory decree was completely silent both as to alimony and division of property.
On December 13, 1950 a final decree in divorce was entered by the court 'upon the terms and conditions contained in the Interlocutory Decree.' This final decree also failed to make mention of a division of the property owned by the parties, nor did it reserve the matter for future consideration by the court.
On December 12, 1951 Alice filed a 'Motion for Division of Property' wherein she sought an order of court that she be decreed to be the sole owner of certain real estate then jointly owned by herself and her former husband, this property being their family home and consisting of one lot and the modest improvement located thereon. Hearing on this motion was held on February 1, 1952, the court stating upon the conclusion of the hearing that a written order would follow.
On October 13, 1954 Alice filed a petition wherein she stated that the court had theretofore on December 12, 1951 verbally ordered Edward to execute and deliver to her a deed conveying his interest in the subject property, the court at the time stating that a written order would follow, but that in fact no written order ever followed, and she asked that Edward be compelled to convey his interest in this property to her. On November 16, 1954 this petition was granted and Edward ordered to convey his interest in the property to his former wife.
However, this order was never complied with by Edward, and on November 22, 1958 Alice died. Katie Turzanski, the mother of Alice, was appointed administratrix of the estate of her deceased daughter, and on September 8, 1960 she was by order of court 'substituted' for Alice in the divorce action. On this same day in an ex parte proceeding the court ordered Edward to convey the above described property to the administratrix within five days, with the proviso that if he did not do so a trustee would be appointed and directed to convey for him.
Edward was eventually served with a copy of this order, whereupon he promptly moved to vacate the same. This motion was denied and on December 22, 1960 the court ordered the clerk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People in Interest of Clinton, 87SC200
...Note, however, that any requirement implicating the court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 561, 370 P.2d 757, 759 (1962), and can be raised at any time, Sanchez v. State, 730 P.2d 328, 331 (Colo.1986); C.R.C.P. 12(h)(3). Personal juris......
-
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Adams, 84SC58
...of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any time, even for the first time in this Court." Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 561, 370 P.2d 757, 759 (1962); accord Peaker v. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 174 Colo. 210, 213, 483 P.2d 232, 233 (1971);......
-
Closed Basin Landowners Ass'n v. Rio Grande Water Conservation Dist.
...of Grand Junction v. Kannah Creek Water Users Association, 192 Colo. 284, 290, 557 P.2d 1173, 1177 (1976); Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 561-62, 370 P.2d 757, 758 (1962), we are persuaded that the water court did have subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Subject matter juris......
-
First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. v. Central Bank & Trust Co. of Denver
...870 P.2d 572 (Colo.App.1993) (interpreting requirement for good faith negotiation in eminent domain action); Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 370 P.2d 757 (1962); cf. Regional Transportation District v. Lopez, 916 P.2d 1187 (Colo.1996) (contrasting jurisdictional requirement with wa......
-
ARTICLE 10
...the subject matter cannot acquire jurisdiction even though the parties expressly or impliedly consent thereto. Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 370 P.2d 757 (1962). The jurisdiction of the district court of Adams county, arising from the filing and disposition of the divorce action ......
-
ARTICLE 10 UNIFORM DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE ACT
...the subject matter cannot acquire jurisdiction even though the parties expressly or impliedly consent thereto. Triebelhorn v. Turzanski, 149 Colo. 558, 370 P.2d 757 (1962). The jurisdiction of the district court of Adams county, arising from the filing and disposition of the divorce action ......