Opinion
Dec. 26, 1973.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Martin, Knapple & Johnson, Donald J. Humphrey, Boulder, for petitioner-appellant.
Day & Hilgers, Thomas D. Day, Boulder, for respondent-appellee.
COYTE, Judge.
After a hearing, the trial court dismissed petitioner's paternity action and granted her 20 days in which to file motion for a new trial. The motion was not filed within that time, and some 33 days later petitioner filed a 'Motion for Leave to File Petition for Rehearing Late.' On the basis of execusable neglect pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b), the court then entered an order granting petitioner 10 days from the date of the order in which to file a petition for rehearing. A petition for rehearing was filed 12 days later and denied approximately three months later.
Although the point was not raised in this court by the parties, we take note of the lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to consider the motion for new trial. Since time had expired before petitioner either filed her motion for new trial or requested an extension of time for filing, the court had no authority to extend the time for filing the motion for new trial; and, accordingly, this court could acquire no jurisdiction to consider the appeal. C.R.C.P. 59(f). As stated in Austin v. College/University Insurance Co., 30 Colo.App. 502, 495 P.2d 1162 'A trial court cannot enlarge the time for the filing of a motion for new trial after the expiration of the specified period permitted by the rules. C.R.C.P. 6(b). The trial court's order of December 29, 1970, purporting to grant the Insurance Co. 10 days to file additional motions could not and did not extend the time for filing of a motion for new trial. Therefore, Insurance Co.'s motion for new trial which was filed January 7, 1971, should have been stricken by the trial court. See Niles v. Shinkle, 119 Colo. 458, 204 P.2d 1077.'
Appeal dismissed.
ENOCH and PIERCE, JJ., concur.