Rule 54. Judgments; Costs.

(a) Definition; Form. "Judgment" as used in these rules includes a decree and order to or from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not contain a recital of pleadings, the report of a master, or the record of prior proceedings.

(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims, or parties and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

(c) Demand for Judgment. A judgment by default shall not be different in kind from that prayed for in the demand for judgment. Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings.

(d) Costs. Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of this state or in these rules, reasonable costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party considering any relevant factors which may include the needs and complexity of the case and the amount in controversy. But costs against the state of Colorado, its officers or agencies, shall be imposed only to the extent permitted by law.

(e) Against Partnership. Any judgment obtained against a partnership or unincorporated association shall bind only the joint property of the partners or associates, and the separate property of the parties personally served.

(f) After Death, How Payable. If a party dies after a verdict or decision upon any issue of fact, and before judgment, the court may, nevertheless, render judgment thereon. Such judgment shall not be a lien on the real property of the deceased party, but shall be paid as a claim against his estate.

(g) Against Unknown Defendants. The judgment in an action in rem shall apply to and conclude the unknown defendants whose interests are described in the complaint.

(h) Revival of Judgments. A judgment may be revived against any one or more judgment debtors whether they are jointly or severally liable under the judgment. To revive a judgment a motion shall be filed alleging the date of the judgment and the amount thereof which remains unsatisfied. Thereupon the clerk shall issue a notice requiring the judgment debtor to show cause within 14 days after service thereof why the judgment should not be revived. The notice shall be served on the judgment debtor in conformity with Rule 4. If the judgment debtor answer, any issue so presented shall be tried and determined by the court. A revived judgment must be entered within twenty years after the entry of the judgment which it revives, and may be enforced and made a lien in the same manner and for like period as an original judgment. If a judgment is revived before the expiration of any lien created by the original judgment, the filing of the transcript of the entry of revivor in the register of actions with the clerk and recorder of the appropriate county before the expiration of such lien shall continue that lien for the same period from the entry of the revived judgment as is provided for original judgments. Revived judgments may themselves be revived in the manner herein provided.

Source: (d) and (h) amended and adopted December 14, 2011, effective January 1, 2012, for all cases pending on or filed on or after January 1, 2012, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 1(b); (d) and comments amended and adopted May 28, 2015, effective July 1, 2015, for cases filed on or after July 1, 2015.

Cross references: For effect of an order of dismissal, see C.R.C.P. 41(a) and (b); for pleadings, see C.R.C.P. 7(a); for masters' reports, see C.R.C.P. 53(e); for default judgments, see C.R.C.P. 55; for creditors' claims against estates, see part 8 of article 12 of title 15, C.R.S.; for service of process by publication, see C.R.C.P. 4(h)(4); for provisions encompassing process, see C.R.C.P. 4.



[1] The amendment to C.R.C.P. 54(c) is to eliminate what has been perceived as a possible conflict between that section and the recent change to C.R.C.P. 8(a) which prohibits statement of amount in that ad damnum. The amendment simply strikes the words "or exceed in amount" to make the section consistent with C.R.C.P. 8(a). Relief sought in the prayer is now described rather than stated as an amount. It is, therefore, not necessary to have an amount limitation in C.R.C.P. 54(c).


[2] Rule 54(d) is amended to require that cost awards be "reasonable" by directing courts to consider any relevant factors, which may include the needs and complexity of the case, and the amount in controversy.

[3] The reasonableness requirement is consistent with §13-16-122, C.R.S., which lists matters included in cost awards, because it can hardly have been the intent of the legislature to authorize unreasonable awards.

[4] Cost shifting must be addressed in the Case Management Order required by C.R.C.P. 16.


I. General Consideration.

II. Definition; Form.

III. Multiple Claims or Parties.

IV. Demand for Judgment.

V. Costs.

VI. Against Partnership.

VII. Revival of Judgments.


Law reviews. For article, "Notes on Proposed Amendments to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure", see 27 Dicta 165 (1950). For article, "Amendments to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure", see 28 Dicta 242 (1951). For article, "Judgment: Rules 54-63", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 581 (1951). For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals", see 36 Dicta 5 (1959). For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure and Appeals", see 39 Dicta 133 (1962). For article, "Certification Under Rule 54(b): Risky Efficiency", see 13 Colo. Law. 997 (1984). For article, "The Final Judgment Rule And Attorney Fees", see 17 Colo. Law. 2139 (1988). For article, "The 'Finality' of an Order When a Request for Attorney Fees Remains Outstanding", see 43 Colo. Law. 41 (May 2014).

Section (b) of this rule is an exception to the rule that an appellate court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. But the exception is quite limited and must be construed consistently with the historical policy against allowing piecemeal appeals. A court correctly certifies a ruling that does not resolve all claims in a case as final under section (b) only if the ruling is on an entire claim for relief and ultimately disposes of the claim and if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason to delay an appeal on the ruling. Galindo v. Valley View Ass'n, 2017 COA 78, 399 P.3d 796.

Where the damages to which plaintiff is entitled can only be estimated at the pleading stage and the defendant is given notice of the various elements of the damages claim, then recovery is not to be limited to the amount listed in the complaint. DeCicco v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n, 40 Colo. App. 63, 573 P.2d 559 (1977).

Rule inapplicable to C.R.C.P. 120 foreclosure sale. Because a statutory public trustee foreclosure does not involve foreclosure through the court, and because there is no appeal from the limited order of a C.R.C.P. 120, court on a motion authorizing the public trustee to conduct a foreclosure sale, this rule is inapplicable to such a foreclosure. Bakers Park Mining & Milling Co. v. District Court, 662 P.2d 483 (Colo. 1983).

Rule as basis for jurisdiction. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Anderson, 34 Colo. App. 37, 525 P.2d 478 (1974), aff'd, 534 P.2d 1201 (1975); Silverman v. Univ. of Colo., 36 Colo. App. 269, 541 P.2d 93 (1975); United Bank of Denver Nat'l Ass'n v. Shavlik, 189 Colo. 280, 541 P.2d 317 (1975); First Com. Corp. v. Geter, 37 Colo. App. 391, 547 P.2d 1291 (1976); City of Delta v. Thompson, 37 Colo. App. 205, 548 P.2d 1292 (1975); Chavez v. Zanghi, 42 Colo. App. 417, 598 P.2d 152 (1979); Styers v. Mara, 631 P.2d 1138 (Colo. App. 1981); Fort Collins Nat'l Bank v. Fort Collins Nat'l Bank Bldg., 662 P.2d 196 (Colo. App. 1983).

Applied in Vogt v. Hansen, 123 Colo. 105, 225 P.2d 1040 (1950); Corper v. City & County of Denver, 36 Colo. App. 118, 536 P.2d 874 (1975), modified, 191 Colo. 252, 552 P.2d 13 (1976); Shaw v. Aurora Mobile Homes & Real Estate, Inc., 36 Colo. App. 321, 539 P.2d 1366 (1975); Ginsberg v. Stanley Aviation Corp., 37 Colo. App. 240, 551 P.2d 1086 (1975); Page v. Clark, 40 Colo. App. 24, 572 P.2d 1214 (1977); Hait v. Miller, 38 Colo. App. 503, 559 P.2d 260 (1977); In re Heinzman, 40 Colo. App. 227, 579 P.2d 638 (1977); Mancillas v. Campbell, 42 Colo. App. 145, 595 P.2d 267 (1979); In re Heinzman, 198 Colo. 36, 596 P.2d 61 (1979); Tipton v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, 42 Colo. App. 534, 601 P.2d 352 (1979); Gray v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 43 Colo. App. 107, 602 P.2d 879 (1979); Ellis v. Rocky Mt. Empire Sports, Inc., 43 Colo. App. 166, 602 P.2d 895 (1979); Haines v. United Sec. Ins. Co., 43 Colo. App. 276, 602 P.2d 901 (1979); Einarsen v. City of Wheat Ridge, 43 Colo. App. 232, 604 P.2d 691 (1979); Naiman v. Warren A. Flickinger & Assocs., 43 Colo. App. 279, 605 P.2d 63 (1979); Ellerman v. Kite, 626 P.2d 696 (Colo. App. 1979); First Nat'l Bank v. Collins, 44 Colo. App. 228, 616 P.2d 154 (1980); Fuqua Homes, Inc. v. Western Sur. Co., 44 Colo. App. 257, 616 P.2d 163 (1980); Cibere v. Indus. Comm'n, 624 P.2d 920 (Colo. App. 1980); Rossmiller v...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT