Joinder of Claims and Counterclaims in Cases Under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act
| Publication year | 1986 |
| Pages | 1818 |
| Citation | Vol. 15 No. 10 Pg. 1818 |
1986, October, Pg. 1818. Joinder of Claims and Counterclaims in Cases Under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act
As a general rule, a litigant may join as many claims or assert as many counterclaims as the litigant may have against an opposing party.(fn1) However, it is unclear whether this general rule applies to an action under Colorado's Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act ["UDMA"].(fn2) This article deals with the question of whether a petitioner under the UDMA may join tort or contract claims against the respondent-spouse and whether the respondent may assert a counterclaim stating a cause of action in law or equity against the petitioner-spouse.
The Colorado Constitution provides that Colorado's district courts are trial courts of general jurisdiction.(fn3) Constitutionally then, the district courts have "unrestricted and sweeping jurisdictional powers."(fn4) Legislation has been held to limit the jurisdiction of the district courts, but, without express legislative language limiting the court's jurisdiction, the district courts have full power to hear and adjudge all matters in controversy.
Several Colorado cases have dealt with the jurisdiction question. In In re Matter of A.W.,(fn5) the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed a district court's decision upon a petition filed for sterilization of a mentally retarded minor. Although the court in A. W. was a district court sitting as a probate court, a footnote in the appellate decision stated that the scope of jurisdiction was the same as the district court's general jurisdiction. The question presented to the court in A.W. was whether the district courts have the jurisdiction to rule in the absence of statutory authorization. The decision stands for the proposition that the "absence of a statute or constitutional provision which specifically designates a forum or spells out standards for decision will not preclude exercise of a court's jurisdiction. . . . "(fn6)
In People v. Morley,(fn7) the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the district courts had concurrent jurisdiction with the juvenile court in a criminal matter. The court stated that the "constitutional jurisdiction of the district court is unlimited. It should not be limited without circumspection and no statute should be held to limit it unless it says so plainly. . . . "(fn8)
Recently, in Pueblo County Commissioners v. Tracey,(fn9) the Colorado Supreme Court held that a district court sitting as a juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to hear counterclaims brought in a dependency and neglect action. The district court ruled that it did have jurisdiction since the juvenile matter was brought in district court. However, in directing the trial judge to dismiss the counterclaims, the high court pointed out that the district court, in hearing the juvenile matter, had come within the definition of "juvenile court" as set forth in the Children's Code.(fn10) The court further noted that the juvenile courts are "statutory courts" and therefore have no jurisdiction other than that expressly granted by statute,(fn11) and the district courts are "constitutional courts" and have jurisdiction unless prohibited by statute.(fn12)
The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure ("C.R.C.P.") apply to cases under the UDMA unless there is statutory language expressly providing otherwise.(fn13) Except for the designation of the initial pleadings as "petition" and "response," all other pleadings are "denominated as provided in the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure."(fn14) The commencement of a case under the UDMA, personal service of the summons and...
To continue reading
Request your trial