The 1985 Civil Rule Amendments
| Publication year | 1985 |
| Pages | 1198 |
| Citation | Vol. 14 No. 7 Pg. 1198 |
1985, July, Pg. 1198. The 1985 Civil Rule Amendments
Effective January 1, 1985, significant amendments were made to several of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure ("C.R.C.P."). The most important amendments were to C.R.C.P. Rules 59 (post-trial) motions) and 103 (garnishment).(fn1) However, there were also significant amendments to C.R.C.P. Rules 58 (entry of judgment), 52 (findings by the court), 50 (motion for directed verdict), and 6 (time), as well as Colorado Appellate Rules ("C.A.R.") Rule 4 (appeals).
C.R.C.P. Rule 59, which previously covered only motions for new trial, now covers all post-trial motions. The apparent purpose of the new rule is to streamline the post-trial process by setting forth, in one comprehensive rule, standards and grounds for all post-trial motions. An additional purpose of the new rule is to eliminate certain pitfalls and traps which have plagued the Colorado litigator in recent years. Thus, motions for judgment N.O.V., new trial and to amend findings and judgment are now all covered by new Rule 59.
The new Colorado rule represents a substantial departure from the old rule which closely tracked the federal version. Indeed, it is more accurate to describe the Rule 59 changes as repeal and reenactment rather than amendment. As a result, the federal rule has been diminished as a useful counterpoint and as a source of persuasive authority in interpreting the Colorado rule. Due to these extensive changes, it may be some time before the impact of the rule can be measured.
In particular, re-enacted Rule 59 differs from its predecessor in the following critical respects:
1) A motion for new trial is not a prerequisite to appellate review;
2) Issues on appeal are not limited to issues raised in a motion for new trial;
3) A motion for directed verdict at the end of all the evidence is not a prerequisite to a motion for judgment N.O.V.
4) Insufficiency of the evidence is a ground for judgment N.O.V. but not for a new trial;
5) No genuine issue as to any material fact is a ground for judgment N.O.V. (i.e., borrowed from the standard for summary judgment under C.R.C.P. Rule 56);
6) Specific provision for conditional motions for new trial are eliminated.
7) The time for filing all post-trial motions is fifteen days from the date of judgment (including motion for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence, which previously had a time limit of six months).
The purpose of the elimination of the requirement of filing a motion for new trial as a prerequisite of appeal is to achieve judicial economy. Under the previous rule, such motions were required presumably on the theory that they saved appellate time since they ensured a trial judge the opportunity to correct errors before appeal. In practice, however, these motions resulted in increased paperwork and unnecessary delays. Trial judges rarely reversed themselves, and even when they did, any savings of time were outweighed by the increased time required to hear and rule on many, often perfunctory, motions.
In this respect, the Colorado rule has now been brought into desirable conformity with the federal rule and should present no problems in implementation. In fact, the new rule removes a trap for the unwary litigator. Under the previous rule, an appellant was often deprived of an important issue on appeal because that issue did not become apparent until after the time for filing a motion for new...
To continue reading
Request your trial