2012 COA 6
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petitioners seek interlocutory review under §13-4-102.1 after a trial court order related to conservation easement credits.
- Petitioners’ motion for certification was filed after the 14‑day window in CAR 4.2(c) expired.
- Trial court purportedly extended the CAR 4.2(c) deadline, prompting petition to appeal under CAR 4.2(c) and 4.2(d).
- The trial court later certified the order for interlocutory appeal over respondents’ objections.
- Petitioners filed a petition to appeal in this court more than 14 days after certification, seeking leave to file late.
- This court must decide whether a trial court can extend CAR 4.2 deadlines and whether CAR 4.2(d) is jurisdictional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a trial court extend CAR 4.2(c) deadlines? | Petitioners rely on the trial court's October 12 order extending time. | C.R.C.P. 6(b) does not apply to CAR 4.2(c) deadlines; no authority to extend. | A trial court may not extend CAR 4.2(c) deadlines. |
| Is CAR 4.2(d) deadline for filing a petition to appeal jurisdictional? | Petition timely under some extensions; good cause may excuse late filing. | 4.2(d) is jurisdictional and mandatory with no automatic extensions absent rule-based relief. | Yes; 4.2(d) is jurisdictional, and no good cause shown for extension. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fuqua, 764 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1988) (language of rules governs extension authority; carelessness not excusable neglect)
- In re Marriage of Eisenhuth, 976 P.2d 896 (Colo. App. 1999) (plain language interpreted; rule application)
- People v. Jackson, 972 P.2d 698 (Colo. App. 1998) (appellate rules interpreted; extension limitations)
- Collins v. Boulder Urban Renewal Auth., 684 P.2d 952 (Colo. App. 1984) (district court lacks authority to extend time for filing notice of appeal)
- Estep v. People, 753 P.2d 1241 (Colo. 1988) (excusable neglect standard for extensions under CAR 26(b))
- Guevara v. Foxhoven, 928 P.2d 793 (Colo. App. 1996) (carelessness not excusable neglect)
- Hill en v. Colo. Comp. Ins. Auth., 883 P.2d 586 (Colo. App. 1994) (counsel's failure to timely file not excusable)
- In re C.A.B.L., 221 P.3d 433 (Colo. App. 2009) (unique circumstances doctrine; misled by court ruling)