ia v. Wozniak
2020 COA 10
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- Spiremedia sued Wozniak for breach of contract and treble damages for a dishonored check; a district court Delay Reduction Order (DRO) required default motions to comply with C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-14.
- Spiremedia served Wozniak out-of-state and, after no answer, filed a motion for default judgment; the court denied it as not complying with Rule 121 § 1-14 without explaining specific deficiencies.
- Spiremedia refiled substantially the same motion, adding an unsworn declaration under the Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act (UUDA) attesting to non-minor/non-servicemember status; the court again denied the motion and dismissed the case for DRO violation.
- Spiremedia moved to reconsider, arguing the court never explained what further documentation or proof was required under Rule 121 § 1-14(2); the district court denied reconsideration, again without detail.
- The Court of Appeals held the motions were in fact deficient (notably the attorney-fee affidavit), but concluded the district court erred by failing to identify the specific Rule 121 § 1-14 deficiencies before dismissing, and that the UUDA declaration can satisfy the rule’s affidavit requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spiremedia’s second motion complied with C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-14 | Second motion complied (including UUDA declaration in lieu of affidavit) | Motion was noncompliant and improperly formatted | Court: Motion was deficient (e.g., attorney-fee support absent); district court did not err in concluding noncompliance |
| Whether an unsworn declaration under the UUDA satisfies Rule 121 § 1-14 affidavit requirements | UUDA declaration satisfies the affidavit requirement | Court may require a sworn affidavit | Court: UUDA unsworn declaration has same effect as sworn declaration under § 13-27-104(1); it satisfies Rule 121 § 1-14 affidavit requirement |
| Whether Rule 121 § 1-14(2) requires the court to explain deficiencies when denying a default-judgment motion | Court must identify deficiencies so movant can correct them | Court may simply deny for noncompliance without detailed explanation | Court: Rule 121 § 1-14(2) obligates courts to notify the moving party of what further documentation, proof, or hearing is required — identification of specific subsection(s) is required before dismissal |
| Whether dismissal without explanation was appealable and timely | Dismissal final and appeal timely due to Rule 59 motion treatment | N/A | Court: Dismissal was final (statute of limitations had run) and Spiremedia’s motion to reconsider was treated as a timely C.R.C.P. 59 motion, so appeal was timely |
Key Cases Cited
- SMLL, L.L.C. v. Daly, 128 P.3d 266 (Colo. App. 2005) (dismissal without prejudice generally not final but may be final when statute of limitations bars refile)
- Golden Lodge No. 13, I.O.O.F. v. Easley, 916 P.2d 666 (Colo. App. 1996) (dismissal effect on appealability)
- Wyler/Pebble Creek Ranch v. Colorado Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 883 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1994) (same topic on finality)
- Bailey v. Airgas-Intermountain, Inc., 250 P.3d 746 (Colo. App. 2010) (a motion to reconsider may be treated as a C.R.C.P. 59 post-trial motion)
- Koh v. Kumar, 207 P.3d 900 (Colo. App. 2009) (procedural protections required before sua sponte dismissal)