Rule 57 DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Rule 57. Declaratory Judgments.

(a) Power to Declare Rights, etc.; Force of Declaration. District and superior courts within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceedings shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

(b) Who May Obtain Declaration of Rights. Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.

(c) Contract Construed Before Breach. A contract may be construed either before or after there has been a breach thereof.

(d) For What Purposes Interested Person May Have Rights Declared. Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, lunatic, or insolvent, may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto:

(1) To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin or other; or

(2) To direct the executors, administrators, or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity; or

(3) To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings.

(e) Not a Limitation. The enumeration in sections (b), (c), and (d) of this Rule does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in section (a) of this Rule, in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.

(f) When Court May Refuse to Declare Right. The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

(g) Review. All orders, judgments, and decrees under this Rule may be reviewed as other orders, judgments, and decrees.

(h) Further Relief. Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application is deemed sufficient, the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.

(i) Issues of Fact. When a proceeding under this Rule involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issues may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of facts are tried and determined in other actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending.

(j) Parties; Notice to State or Municipality. When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding. In any proceeding which involves a challenge to the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, the party challenging the ordinance or franchise shall serve the municipality with a copy of the relevant motion or pleading and such municipality shall be made a party, and is entitled to be heard. If a party files a motion or other pleading asserting that a state statute, ordinance, or franchise is unconstitutional, that party shall serve the state attorney general with a copy of the motion or pleading, and the state is entitled to be heard. Notice to the state or municipality required by this subsection (j) shall be made pursuant to Rule 5 (b) within 21 days of the date when the motion or pleading challenging validity or constitutionality was filed.

(k) Rule is Remedial; Purpose. This Rule is declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations; and is to be liberally construed and administered.

(l) Interpretation and Construction. This Rule shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it, and to harmonize, as far as possible, with federal laws and regulations on the subject of declaratory judgment and decrees.

(m) Trial by Jury; Remedies; Speedy Hearing. Trial by jury may be demanded under the circumstances and in the manner provided in Rules 38 and 39. The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is appropriate. The court may order a speedy hearing of an action for a declaratory judgment and may advance it on the calendar.

Source: (j) amended and effective January 10, 2019.

Cross references: For declaratory judgments, see article 51 of title 13, C.R.S.; for jury trials of right, see C.R.C.P. 38; for trial by jury or by the court, see C.R.C.P. 39.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Power to Declare Rights; Force of Declaration.

III. Who May Obtain Declaration of Rights.

IV. Contract Construed Before Breach.

V. For What Purposes Interested Persons May Have Rights Declared.

VI. When Court May Refuse to Declare Right.

VII. Review.

VIII. Further Relief.

IX. Issues of Fact.

X. Parties - Municipal Ordinances.

XI. Rule is Remedial - Purpose.

XII. Trial by Jury.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For article, "Declaratory Judgments in Colorado", see 6 Dicta 20 (Feb. 1929). For article, "A Decade of Colorado Law: Conflict of Laws, Security, Contracts and Equity", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 247 (1951). For article, "Judgment: Rules 54-63", see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 581 (1951). For article, "One Year Review of Cases on Contracts", see 33 Dicta 57 (1956). For article, "One Year Review of Civil Procedure", see 34 Dicta 69 (1957). For article, "One Year Review of Criminal Law and Procedure", see 39 Dicta 81 (1962). For comment on Meier v. Schooley appearing below, see 34 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 414 (1962). For comment, "Pre-Enforcement Judicial Review: CF & I Steel Corp. v. Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission", see 58 Den. L.J. 693 (1981). For article, "Declaratory Judgment Actions to Resolve Insurance Coverage Questions", see 18 Colo. Law. 2299 (1989).

Annotator's note. Since this rule is similar to CSA, C. 93, §§78 to 92, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this rule.

The declaratory judgment act is constitutional. San Luis Power & Water Co. v. Trujillo, 93 Colo. 385, 26 P.2d 537 (1933).

The Colorado declaratory judgment act is incorporated in this rule. People ex rel. Inter-Church Temperance Movement v. Baker, 133 Colo. 398, 297 P.2d 273 (1956); State Bd. of Control for State Homes for Aged v. Hays, 149 Colo. 400, 369 P.2d 431 (1962).

Review pursuant to this rule is appropriate where C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) relief is unavailable because the challenged action is legislative or because review of the record is an insufficient remedy. Grant v. District Court, 635 P.2d 201 (Colo. 1981).

Declaratory relief under this rule is an appropriate means of challenging administrative governmental actions that are not subject to review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Chellsen v. Pena, 857 P.2d 472 (Colo. App. 1992).

Review pursuant to this rule is appropriate even in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding where a declaratory judgment is requested and C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) does not provide an adequate remedy. Constitutional questions and challenges to the overall validity of a statute or ordinance are more properly reviewed under this rule. Native Am. Rights Fund, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 97 P.3d 283 (Colo. App. 2004).

Review under this rule is not available where sufficient review has already been provided under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Denver Ctr. for Performing Arts v. Briggs, 696 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1985); Carney v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 30 P.3d 861 (Colo. App. 2001).

Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief asserting that planning commission did not provide sufficient notice to them of a permit review meeting was properly dismissed under C.R.C.P. 106(b). Because C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) is the exclusive remedy for reviewing quasi-judicial decisions, all claims that effectively seek such review (whether framed as claims under section (a)(4) of this rule or not) are subject to the 30-day deadline under C.R.C.P. 106(b). Thus, claims for declaratory relief under this rule that seek review of quasi-judicial decisions must be filed within 30 days. JJR 1, LLC v. Mt. Crested Butte, 160 P.3d 365 (Colo. App. 2007).

The granting of declaratory relief is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court and is not precluded even when there is another adequate remedy. Troelstrup v. District Court, 712 P.2d 1010 (Colo. 1986).

Ordinances legislative in nature are reviewable under this rule. Ordinances establishing general policies, such as a zoning ordinance, even though accompanied by procedures for notice and public hearing, are, when determining the proper procedure for review, legislative in nature and reviewable under this rule when the constitutional application of the ordinance is involved. Margolis v. District Court, 638 P.2d 297 (Colo. 1981).

A zoning ordinance amendment is subject to review pursuant to this rule and is not...