Mesa BOCC v. Hale, 23CA2064

Mesa County Board of County Commissioners filed a complaint against Beverly and George Hale and the Beverly A. Hale Trust, alleging violations of local land use and public health codes regarding storing junk and garbage on their property.
The parties initially agreed through a court-approved stipulation for a deferred judgment, providing the Hales additional time to bring the property into compliance.
The stipulation stated that failure to comply would result in default judgment without further notice or proceedings.
After the deadline, the County moved for and was granted default judgment based on evidence of continued violations; the Hales did not formally challenge this judgment.
Subsequently, the County sought and obtained a court order permitting it to abate (clean up) the property, again over objections from the Hales.
The Hales, now represented by counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied without a hearing as untimely and improperly raising arguments previously available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion for Reconsideration	No new legal basis; issues resolved	Court erred in denying motion without hearing	Denial within court’s discretion
Need for Evidentiary Hearing	Stipulation & default judgment conclusive	Challenged meaning of code terms; wanted a hearing	No entitlement without new facts
Challenging Code Violation	Hales already admitted via stipulation	Did not violate code; disputed code interpretations	Not proper in reconsideration motion
Due Process/Pro Se Participation	Not addressed as basis for relief	Claimed lack of hearing violated due process rights	Pro se status not a ground for relief

Hytken v. Wake, 68 P.3d 508 (Colo. App. 2002) (motion for reconsideration is within court's discretion)
Durbin v. Bonanza Corp., 716 P.2d 1124 (Colo. App. 1986) (stipulations are binding judicial admissions)
Hartman v. Watters, 711 P.2d 1287 (Colo. App. 1985) (court-ordered stipulations are binding on parties)