From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Interest of B.J.F

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division V
Aug 18, 1988
761 P.2d 297 (Colo. App. 1988)

Opinion

No. 87CA1712

Decided August 18, 1988.

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County Honorable Paul J. Keohane, Judge

Meconi Kiehnhoff, Rocco F. Meconi, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Marshall Marshall, Warren T. Marshall, for Respondent-Appellee.


The People appeal a trial court order granting the motion of C.F. (father) for relief from a judgment terminating the parent-child legal relationship between him and his minor child, B.J.F., which was certified as final pursuant to C.R.C.P. 54(b). We issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order or judgment and, having reviewed the People's response to the order, we conclude that certification of the grant of father's C.R.C.P. 60(b) motion as a final judgment under C.R.C.P. 54(b) was improper. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

An appellate court may not entertain an appeal of a decision improperly certified as final under C.R.C.P. 54(b). Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1982). It may raise and resolve the question of legal sufficiency of a C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification on its own motion. Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, supra.

In issuing a C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification, a trial court must determine: (1) that the ruling concerns an "entire claim for relief," (2) that the ruling constitutes an ultimate disposition of an entire claim, and (3) that there is no just reason for delay in entry of a final judgment on the claim. Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274 (Colo. 1986); Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, supra.

An order granting a motion for relief from judgment is not a final judgment. Broyles v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., 695 P.2d 1136 (Colo. 1985); Westerkamp v. Westerkamp, 155 Colo. 534, 395 P.2d 737 (1964). Rather, it sets the stage for further proceedings, leaving all previous orders and rulings subject to rescission or modification. Broyles v. Fort Lyon Canal Co., supra. Accordingly, the grant of a motion filed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 60(b) does not constitute an ultimate disposition of an entire claim, and a C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification is improper with respect thereto. See Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGE PLANK and JUDGE FISCHBACH concur.


Summaries of

Interest of B.J.F

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division V
Aug 18, 1988
761 P.2d 297 (Colo. App. 1988)
Case details for

Interest of B.J.F

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellant, In the Interest…

Court:Colorado Court of Appeals. Division V

Date published: Aug 18, 1988

Citations

761 P.2d 297 (Colo. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

State ex Rel. Salazar v. Gen. Steel Domest

If the court of appeals determines that a C.R.C.P. 54(b) order has been improperly entered, then the appeal…

Barney, Inc., v. Schroeder

Thus, although we have jurisdiction to decide the legal sufficiency of the C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification, see…