Chapter 22 - § 22.4 • MOTIONS FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 22.4 • MOTIONS FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF

Colorado

➢ Time for Filing. Within 14 days of entry of judgment as provided in C.R.C.P. 58 or such greater time as the court may allow, a party may move for post-trial relief, including a new trial on all or part of the issues, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, amendment of findings, or amendment of judgment. C.R.C.P. 59(a).
➢ Time; Motion to Amend Judgment. A motion for relief from an error under C.R.C.P. 60(a) may be filed at any time. Reasoner v. District Court, 594 P.2d 1060, 1061 (Colo. 1979).

➢ A Timely Filed C.R.C.P. 59 Motion Tolls the Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal. Goodwin v. Homeland Cent. Ins. Co., 172 P.3d 938, 944 (Colo. App. 2007). However, a mere motion for reconsideration may not be sufficient to effectuate such tolling. People In Interest of A.M.C., 2014 COA 31, ¶ 14.

➢ Grounds for Motion to Amend Judgment. Relief under C.R.C.P. 60(a) is limited to cases in which the trial court originally intended to make the award granted by corrective amendment. Where the record demonstrates that the trial court originally intended to grant the relief that was the subject of the amended judgment and that the omission of any mention of claims for amounts due was the result of a judicial error, it was correctable under the terms of C.R.C.P. 60(a). Diamond Back Servs., Inc. v. Willowbrook Water & Sanitation Dist., 961 P.2d 1134, 1136-37 (Colo. App. 1997).

➢ Grounds for Motion for New Trial.

1) Any Irregularity that Prevented a Fair Trial. C.R.C.P. 59(d)(1). The purpose of a motion for new trial under C.R.C.P. 59 is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct its mistakes. Harriman v. Cabela's Inc., 371 P.3d 758, 763-64 (Colo. App. 2016). Examples include incorrect allocation of the burden of proof (Blecker v. Kofoed, 714 P.2d 909, 913 (Colo. 1986)); the misconduct of opposing counsel (Park Stations, Inc. v. Hamilton, 554 P.2d 311, 313 (Colo. App. 1976)); or the jury's access to an exhibit that had been excluded (Maloy v. Griffith, 240 P.2d 923, 926 (Colo. 1952)).

2) Misconduct of the Jury. Extrajudicial investigation by a juror during deliberations generally is sufficient to warrant a new trial. Butters v. Wann, 363 P.2d 494, 497 (Colo. 1961); T.S. ex rel. Pueblo County Dept. of Social Services v. G.G., 679 P.2d 118, 119-20 (Colo. App. 1984).

Improper communication between the bailiff and jury during deliberations warrants a new trial if the court finds a reasonable possibility that the jury

...