Widener v. District Court In and For Jefferson County
| Decision Date | 18 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80SA295,80SA295 |
| Citation | 615 P.2d 33,200 Colo. 398 |
| Parties | Sonia F. WIDENER, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT In and For the COUNTY OF JEFFERSON and Ronald J. Hardesty, a Judge of said Court, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Arthur R. Karstaedt, III, Denver, for petitioner.
Gary L. Polidori, P. C., Gary L. Polidori, Lakewood, for respondents.
We issued a rule directing the district court to show cause why the petition of Sonia F. Widener to permit late filing of a notice of appeal should not be granted. We now make that rule absolute.
Re/Max Suburban, Inc., obtained a judgment in the amount of $3,955 plus costs against Sonia F. Widener (defendant) in district court on or about March 13, 1980. On April 17, 1980, the trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. The thirty-day period allowed by C.A.R. 4(a) for filing a notice of appeal in the trial court expired on May 19, 1980. 1 On May 16 the defendant filed a motion to stay judgment and for approval of a supersedeas bond. No notice of appeal was filed at that time. On May 21, 1980, the defendant discovered that a notice of appeal had not been filed. On the following day the defendant filed a motion to permit late filing of a notice of appeal, together with a notice of appeal. After a hearing the trial court denied that motion. The defendant then brought this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21.
In order to take an appeal from the judgment of a trial court in a civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the trial court within thirty days of the date of the judgment where, as here, the parties are present at the time the judgment is announced. 2 C.A.R. 3(a), 4(a). Certain provisions are made for extension of time by an order of the trial court upon a showing of excusable neglect. C.A.R. 4(a). Failure to file a notice of appeal within the prescribed time deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction and precludes a review of the merits. Bosworth Data Services, Inc. v. Gloss, 41 Colo.App. 530, 587 P.2d 1201 (1978).
The defendant contends that a notice of appeal had been prepared for filing concurrently with the filing of the motion to stay judgment and for approval of a supersedeas bond. She contends that the failure to accomplish such filing resulted from a mistake in her attorney's office; that the mistake was discovered by the attorney in reviewing the court file on May 21; that the motion to permit late filing of the notice of appeal was filed promptly thereafter; and that such circumstances constitute excusable neglect within the meaning of C.A.R. 4(a).
We conclude that the motion to stay judgment and for approval of a supersedeas bond contains language which is adequate to serve as a notice of appeal. For this reason we need not consider the circumstances which caused the notice of appeal not to be filed within the prescribed time, or whether such circumstances in themselves would make it an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal pursuant to the authority in C.A.R. 4(a).
The content of the notice of appeal is prescribed by C.A.R. 3(c) as follows:
The motion to stay judgment and for approval of a supersedeas bond contains the following relevant language:
That language contains everything necessary to comply with the requirements of C.A.R. 3(c) with respect to the content of the notice of appeal. The motion was served on the plaintiff by mailing a copy to its counsel.
The purpose of the notice of appeal is simply to put the other party on notice that an appeal will be taken and to identify the action of the trial court from which the appeal is to be taken. See Happy Canyon Investment Co. v. Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota, 38 Colo.App. 385, 560 P.2d 839 (1976); Comtrol, Inc. v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 32 Colo.App. 384, 513 P.2d 1082 (1973); see also State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Palmer, 350 U.S. 944, 76 S.Ct. 321, 100 L.Ed. 823 (1956), rev'g per curiam, 225 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1955); Department of Transportation v. Galley, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bost, 86SA453
...notice that an appeal has been filed and to identify the trial court action from which the appeal is to be taken. Widener v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 615 P.2d 33 (1980). "If the prevailing party could not be misled as to the intention to appeal or as to the judgment from which the app......
-
Monaghan Farms, Inc. v. City and County of Denver By and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs, 1
... ... Fulenwider, III, Appellees ... No. 89SA51 ... Supreme Court of Colorado, ... Feb. 19, 1991 ... As Modified on Denial of Rehearing ... Commissioners (Denver), appeals from an amended decree of the District Court, Water Division No. 1 (water court), that granted the application of ... See Widener ... v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 400, 615 P.2d 33, 34 (1980) ... ...
-
Dawes Agency, Inc. v. American Property Mortg., Inc., 88CA1493
...party by the premature filing of the notice of appeal. Indeed, the other party was on notice of an appeal. See Widener v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 615 P.2d 33 (1980). Thus, allowing the appeal would be consistent with Colorado's public policy favoring resolution of disputes in courts ......
-
Estep v. People
...of such time; ... The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appellate review. Widener v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 615 P.2d 33 (1980); People v. Silvola, 198 Colo. 228, 597 P.2d 583 (1979). It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that parties ma......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...an appeal will be taken and to identify the action of the trial court from which the appeal is to be taken. Widener v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 615 P.2d 33 (1980). The particular function of the notice of appeal is to require the clerk of the court, in which the judgment complained of......
-
Rule 4 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT — WHEN TAKEN.
...v. Mikkleson, 42 Colo. App. 77, 593 P.2d 975 (1979); People v. Malacara, 199 Colo. 243, 606 P.2d 1300 (1980); Widener v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 615 P.2d 33 (1980); People v. Foster, 200 Colo. 283, 615 P.2d 652 (1980); People v. Martinez, 628 P.2d 608 (Colo. 1981); People v. Francis,......
-
Rule 3 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT — HOW TAKEN.
...an appeal will be taken and to identify the action of the trial court from which the appeal is to be taken. Widener v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 615 P.2d 33 (1980). The particular function of the notice of appeal is to require the clerk of the court, in which the judgment complained of......
-
Rule 26 COMPUTATION AND EXTENSION OF TIME.
...this rule for service by mail. Indus. Claim Appeals Office v. Zarlingo, 57 P.3d 736 (Colo. 2002). Applied in Widener v. District Court, 200 Colo. 398, 615 P.2d 33 (1980); People v. Borvm, 632 P.2d 1038 (Colo. App. 1981); Cline v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 792 P.2d 305 (Colo. App. 1990); Garcia v.......