Opinion
No. 70-593.
December 28, 1971. Not Selected for Official Publication
Wife brought suit against divorced husband for expenses and attorney's fees, incurred in returning children from another country after husband had not returned them to wife by date specified by court, and for recovery for pain and suffering and for punitive damages. The District Court of the City and County of Denver, Merle Knous, J., granted husband's motion to dismiss claim on ground that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and wife appealed. The Court of Appeals, Enoch, J., held that wife could not maintain the suit where she had previously initiated contempt action in another court based on husband's failure to return children to wife.
Judgment affirmed.
Milnor H. Senior, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael A. Sabian, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
The parties to this appeal were involved in a custody dispute and this appeal is from an order dismissing plaintiff-appellant's (wife) claim for damages, expenses, attorney's fees and punitive damages. We affirm.
The parties were divorced by a decree of the Boulder District Court, Boulder, Colorado, hereafter referred to as the Boulder Court. In December 1968, the Boulder Court awarded the husband visitation rights with the two minor children for the summer of 1969, with the provision that the children be returned to the wife on August 29, 1969. The husband took the children to Amsterdam, Holland, and did not return them on the date specified. The wife and her attorney went to Holland and returned the children to Colorado. On September 5, 1969, the wife filed a motion in the Boulder Court asking that the husband be held in contempt of court for his failure to return the children as ordered.
While the motion for contempt was pending in the Boulder Court, the wife initiated an action in the Denver District Court, which is the subject of this appeal. In the Denver Court action, the wife sought, in her first claim for relief, to recover from the husband her expenses and attorney's fees incurred in returning the children from Holland, a sum for pain and suffering and another sum as punitive damages. The Denver Court granted the husband's motion to dismiss this claim for relief on the ground that the Denver Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Where two actions are initiated in courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction involving the same parties and claims, the action first initiated has priority and the later action will not lie. Utilities Board v. Southeast Colorado Power Ass'n, 171 Colo. 456, 468 P.2d 36; Martin v. District Court, 150 Colo. 577, 375 P.2d 105; Public Service Co. v. Miller, 135 Colo. 575, 313 P.2d 998; Arakawa v. Co-operative Farmers' Exchange, 81 Colo. 92, 253 P. 830. This rule of law prevents duplicity of lawsuits, curbs, waste and inefficiency; and avoids the conflict and confusion which arises when different courts are called upon to rule on the same matters.
The parties in the Boulder Court and the Denver Court are identical. The basis for the claim for relief is the same, i. e., the husband's failure to return the children as ordered by the Boulder Court. The Denver Court was correct in granting the dismissal.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C. J., and DWYER, J., concur.