Evanrich v. Evans
23CA1679
Colo. Ct. App.Aug 22, 2024Background
- Evanrich Investment Holdings LLC and Richard Gaines (Gaines) and the Evanses own adjacent lots in a covenant community; since 1989, Gaines has used a water line crossing Evanses’ property to supply water to his property.
- Gaines sought a declaratory judgment for access to install a water meter and an injunction preventing the Evanses from interrupting his water service; the Evanses counterclaimed that Gaines had no right to access their lots.
- After an initial trial in September 2022, the court granted the Evanses' motion to dismiss Gaines’ claims.
- Gaines orally moved for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence (a replat indicating a water line easement), prompting the court to vacate the dismissal and reopen proceedings on the issue of easement.
- The trial court subsequently found the existence of a water line easement across Evanses' property and enjoined the Evanses from interfering with the water service.
- The Evanses appealed, challenging the reopening of evidence, the Rule 60(b) relief, and adjudication of an unpled easement claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reopening evidence after dismissal | The newly found replat justified reconsideration | Prejudiced; not given adequate defense opportunity | No abuse of discretion in reopening evidence |
| Granting Rule 60(b) relief (excusable neglect) | Failure to discover replat was excusable neglect | Counsel was merely careless; no excusable neglect | Excusable neglect properly found under 60(b) |
| Addressing easement unpled in complaint | Issue tried by consent, central to parties’ dispute | No formal amendment, court erred in adjudicating easement | Issue was tried by consent; no error |
| Existence of water line easement | Sufficient factual basis to find easement existed | No legal or equitable right to easement | Easement existed; injunction properly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Pullen, 115 Colo. 344 (trial court may reopen a case to serve justice)
- Craig v. Rider, 651 P.2d 397 (factors for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b))
- Goodman Assocs., LLC v. WP Mountain Props., LLC, 222 P.3d 310 (criteria for showing meritorious claim and excusable neglect for relief from judgment)
- Buckmiller v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 727 P.2d 1112 (equitable factors for setting aside judgments)
- Am. Nat’l Bank of Denver v. Etter, 28 Colo. App. 511 (purpose of Rule 15(b) is to allow merits-based decision regardless of pleadings)