Tyler v. Adams County Dept. of Social Services ex rel. Tyler
| Decision Date | 18 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83SC221,83SC221 |
| Citation | 697 P.2d 29 |
| Parties | Almond Wesley TYLER, Petitioner, v. ADAMS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ex rel. Patricia Ann TYLER, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Donald L. Banghart, Lakewood, for petitioner.
Marie Volk Bahr, Asst. Adams County Atty., Commerce City, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the defendant could appeal a judgment vacated and reentered by the district court in order to allow the defendant to file a motion for new trial, after the court erroneously had stated that the motion for new trial could be dispensed with for the original judgment. We conclude that the district court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in vacating and reentering its own judgment, and accordingly vacate the order of the Court of Appeals dismissing the defendant's appeal from the reinstated judgment.
The plaintiff, Adams County Department of Social Services, ex rel. Patricia Ann Tyler, brought suit in the Adams County District Court, alleging that the defendant, Almond Wesley Tyler, had failed to make child support payments to his ex-wife, Patricia Tyler. The district court entered judgment for $15,393 against the defendant on July 27, 1982, after which the court engaged in the following colloquy with the defendant's counsel:
THE COURT: I will enter a stay and no [supersedeas] bond has to be put up as a condition of appeal in the matter.
Are you dispensing in effect with filing any other motion for a rehearing or a new trial so it is clear this is a final judgment today?
That the Court is dispensing with the necessity of Defendant bringing a Motion for New Trial or Rehearing in this matter and authorizing the Defendant to proceed with his appeal forthwith.
Relying on the district court's statements that the motion for new trial was unnecessary, the defendant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, No. 82CA0941, without first filing a motion for new trial in the district court. The Court of Appeals issued an order to show cause and subsequently, on October 20, 1982, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because a motion for new trial was a jurisdictional prerequisite for an appeal under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure then in effect. 1 See Schuster v. Zwicker, 659 P.2d 687 (Colo.1983). C.R.C.P. 59(f) specifically provided that "the trial court may not dispense with the necessity for filing such a motion."
After his appeal was dismissed, the defendant returned to the district court on November 8, 1982, and filed a motion for relief from the judgment on the basis of excusable neglect under C.R.C.P. 60(b), 2 along with a motion for new trial under C.R.C.P. 59. The district court held a hearing on these motions on December 7, 1982. The court granted the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment, then promptly reinstated the judgment and denied the defendant's motion for new trial. 3 The defendant on December 22, 1982, appealed the reinstated judgment to the Court of Appeals, No. 83CA0030. The Court of Appeals on May 11, 1983, again dismissed the action, on motion by the plaintiff. 4
Because the Court of Appeals dismissed the defendant's second appeal without comment, we do not know the basis for the dismissal. We have reviewed the record in this case, however, and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by vacating and reinstating the original judgment. The Court of Appeals should have considered the merits of the defendant's appeal of the reinstated judgment after his motion for new trial had been heard and denied.
The first question we consider is whether the district court had jurisdiction to vacate its judgment after the defendant's first appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. Usually, a dismissal of an appeal serves to affirm the lower court's judgment, unless the dismissal is granted without prejudice. Whipple v. Wessels, 66 Colo. 120, 180 P. 309 (1919); see also Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 137 Colo. 575, 328 P.2d 377 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 926, 79 S.Ct. 609, 3 L.Ed.2d 629 (1959) (). In this case, however, the Court of Appeals did not review the merits of the appeal of the original judgment, but instead dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Such a dismissal did not serve to affirm the original judgment; rather, the dismissal left the judgment as though it had never reached the appellate court. The district court thus retained jurisdiction to consider motions under C.R.C.P. 60(b) for the period granted by the rule: a reasonable time not to exceed six months from the date of the judgment. The defendant's C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion filed on November 8, 1982, fell within this time period.
Because the district court had jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment, the next issue is whether the court abused its discretion in granting the defendant's motion based on excusable neglect. The plaintiff has suggested that C.R.C.P. 60(b) cannot provide relief for a mistake or excusable neglect that occurs after the judgment is entered. The federal courts have not interpreted the equivalent federal rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), so narrowly, see John E. Smith's Sons Co. v. Lattimer Foundry & Machine Co., 239 F.2d 815, 817 (3d Cir.1956); Crawford v. West India Carriers, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 32 (S.D.Fla.1972), and we decline to adopt such a narrow interpretation of the Colorado rule. If a party demonstrates the existence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect that warrants relief from the judgment, and the party timely files the motion for relief, relief may be granted even though the mistake or the excusable neglect occurred after the judgment was entered.
The determination of whether a party's conduct constitutes excusable neglect that justifies relief from a judgment is left to the discretion of the trial court. General Aluminum Corp. v. Arapahoe County District Court, 165 Colo. 445, 439 P.2d 340 (1968); Johnson v. Johnson, 132 Colo. 236, 287 P.2d 49 (1955). The decision of the trial court will be upheld unless the court has abused its discretion. Credit Investment & Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 166 Colo. 471, 444 P.2d 633 (1968); Coerber v. Rath, 164 Colo. 294, 435 P.2d 228 (1967). A party's conduct constitutes excusable neglect when the surrounding circumstances would cause a reasonably careful person similarly to neglect a duty. Watered Down Farms v. Rowe, 39 Colo.App. 169, 566 P.2d 710 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 195 Colo. 152, 576 P.2d 172 (1978). Common carelessness and negligence do not amount to excusable neglect. Id.
In most cases, the failure to perfect an appeal is not neglect that warrants relief under C.R.C.P. 60. Cavanaugh v. Department of Social Services, 644 P.2d 1 (Colo.), appeal dismissed, 459 U.S. 1011, 103 S.Ct. 367, 74 L.Ed.2d 504 (1982), reh'g denied, 460 U.S. 1104, 103 S.Ct. 1806, 76 L.Ed.2d 369 (1983). In this case, however, the defendant acted in reliance on the district court's assurance that a motion for new trial was unnecessary. This court held in Converse v. Zinke, 635 P.2d 882 (Colo.1981), that a trial court's statement on the record that fifteen days rather than ten days are allowed for filing post-judgment motions constitutes a "unique circumstances" exception to the mandatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singh v. Mortensun
...an entry of default, and such ruling will not be disturbed unless the court has abused its discretion. See Tyler v. Adams County Department of Social Services, 697 P.2d 29 (Colo.1985). In exercising its discretion, however, the court must act within the framework of the controlling legal no......
-
Walker Commercial, Inc. v. Brown
...or order under C.R.C.P. 55(c), In re Weisbard , 25 P.3d 24, 26 (Colo. 2001), and C.R.C.P. 60(b), Tyler v. Adams Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Tyler , 697 P.2d 29, 31 (Colo. 1985) ; as a basis for accepting an untimely notice of appeal under C.A.R. 4(a), P.H. , 814 P.2d at 913, and C.A.......
-
Sumler v. District Court, City and County of Denver
...setting aside a default will not be disturbed unless the record reflects a clear abuse of discretion. Tyler v. Adams County Dep't of Social Servs., 697 P.2d 29, 31 (Colo.1985); see Credit Investment & Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 166 Colo. 471, 444 P.2d 633 Judge Simons did not ab......
-
Estep v. People
...failure to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner was due to excusable neglect. 731 P.2d at 738. In Tyler v. Adams County Dept. of Social Services, 697 P.2d 29 (Colo.1985), we excused the appellant's failure to file a motion for a new trial after the trial court assured him it was unn......
-
COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
...in order for the defendant to appeal, constitutes excusable neglect under this rule. Tyler v. Adams County Dept. of Soc. Servs., 697 P.2d 29 (Colo. 1985). Excusable neglect not found. Pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with notice provisions of § 24-10-109 does not constitute excusable ne......
-
Rule 60 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER.
...in order for the defendant to appeal, constitutes excusable neglect under this rule. Tyler v. Adams County Dept. of Soc. Servs., 697 P.2d 29 (Colo. 1985). Excusable neglect not found. Pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with notice provisions of § 24-10-109 does not constitute excusable ne......
-
RULE 60
...in order for the defendant to appeal, constitutes excusable neglect under this rule. Tyler v. Adams County Dept. of Soc. Servs., 697 P.2d 29 (Colo. 1985). Excusable neglect not found. Pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with notice provisions of § 24-10-109 does not constitute excusable ne......
-
Colorado's Revived Collateral Attack Statute
...Hidden Deficiency: see, Branam v. State, 514 So.2d 422 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1987). Mistaken Advice of a Court: Tyler v. Adams County D.S.S., 697 P.2d 29 (Colo. 1985); Converse v. Zinke, 635 P.2d 882 (Colo. 1981); U.S. v. Brady, 710 F.Supp. 290 (D.Colo. 1989). Negligence or Bad Advice of Counse......