Wilbourn v. Hagan, 85CA0822
| Decision Date | 06 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA0822,85CA0822 |
| Citation | 716 P.2d 485 |
| Parties | Edgar S. WILBOURN, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James C. HAGAN; Hagan Engineering, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Randall W.B. Purvis, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Stephen J. Sletta, P.C., Stephen J. Sletta, Colorado Springs, Lucero & Kadinger, P.C., Richard A. Kadinger, Helen Sigmond, Alamosa, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff, Edgar S. Wilbourn III, filed this appeal from an order granting defendants' motion to quash service and dismiss without prejudice. This court, on its own motion, issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment, and both parties have responded. We conclude that the trial court's order is final for purposes of appeal and therefore discharge the order to show cause.
In determining whether an order is final for purposes of appeal, attention is given to the legal effect of the order rather than its form. Levine v. Empire Savings & Loan Ass'n, 192 Colo. 188, 557 P.2d 386 (1976). If the order finally disposes of the action and effectively prevents further proceedings, it is a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Levine v. Empire Savings & Loan Ass'n, supra.
The dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is generally not a final, appealable order. B.C. Investment Co. v. Throm, 650 P.2d 1333 (Colo.App.1982). However, if the circumstances of the case reveal that the action cannot be saved by amendment of the complaint, such dismissal is an appealable final order. Carter v. Small Business Administration, 40 Colo.App. 271, 573 P.2d 564 (1977).
Here, the order of dismissal was based on the trial court's determination that plaintiff could not properly invoke Colorado's long-arm statute, § 13-1-124, C.R.S. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the order constituted a final determination that defendants were not subject to the court's jurisdiction. Thus, the order disposed of the action and prevented further proceedings as effectively as would a final judgment of dismissal. It is therefore a final order for purposes of appeal. See Cyr v. District Court, 685 P.2d 769 (Colo.1984).
The order to show cause is discharged and the parties are ordered to proceed with the filing of the record and briefs in accordance with C.A.R. 11 and 31.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Proffitt
...by correcting a procedural defect, we conclude that this order must be considered final for purposes of this appeal. See Wilbourn v. Hagan, 716 P.2d 485 (Colo.App.1986); In re Marriage of Pratt, 651 P.2d 456 The trial court denied the motion to issue a contempt citation against Goldsmith, a......
-
Wilson v. Kennedy
...be saved by amendment to the complaint." Id. Burden , therefore, falls within the same exception noted above. Cf. Wilbourn v. Hagan , 716 P.2d 485, 485-86 (Colo. App. 1986) (a dismissal based on determination that the defendants weren't subject to personal jurisdiction under Colorado's long......
-
Ferraro v. Frias Drywall, LLC
...action and cannot be refiled. Therefore, the court’s dismissal effectively constitutes a dismissal with prejudice. Wilbourn v. Hagan , 716 P.2d 485, 485 (Colo. App. 1986).II. Dismissal After Entry of Default¶9 The Ferraros contend that the clerk’s entry of default, after Frias failed to res......
-
Norby v. Charnes, 87CA0566
...proceedings were precluded as a result of the order of court. Schoenwald v. Schoen, 132 Colo. 142, 286 P.2d 341 (1955); Wilbourn v. Hagan, 716 P.2d 485 (Colo.App.1986); cf. B.C. Investment Co. v. Throm, 650 P.2d 1333 Here, there was nothing barring plaintiff from simply refiling by a separa......