Columbine Valley Mutual Improvement & Maintenance Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners

Supreme Court of Colorado

Columbine Valley Mutual Improvement & Maintenance Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners

478 P.2d 312, 173 Colo. 321, 1970 Colo. LEXIS 547

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedDecember 21, 1970

DocketNo. 22985

StatusPublished

This text of 478 P.2d 312 (Columbine Valley Mutual Improvement & Maintenance Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Columbine Valley Mutual Improvement & Maintenance Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners, 478 P.2d 312, 173 Colo. 321, 1970 Colo. LEXIS 547 (Colo. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

Plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, are in this court seeking to reverse a summary judgment dismissing their claim.

The trial court assigned as its reason for the dismissal that the plaintiffs were guilty of laches. In this writ of error it was as'serted by the plaintiffs that laches is an affirmative defense which must be affirmatively pleaded under C.R.C.P. 8, and further that the inaction of the plaintiffs in not prosecuting their action does not constitute laches as a matter of law.

We find the judgment of the court is correct though the wrong terminology was used.

What happened is that the plaintiffs filed suit in 1958. In 1967 — eight years and eight months after the filing of the first suit — no serious effort had been made to prosecute the case. When the first suit had been in the court for five years and four months without prosecution it was dismissed, but without prejudice. Two years later the plaintiffs filed a second identical suit and then permitted it to stand without effort to prosecute it. The court came to the conclusion that the delays were inexcusable. A review of the record and a reading of the commentary by the court leads inescapably to the conclusion that the dismissal was for lack of prosecution which the court termed “laches.” This was merely a misnomer. Dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Pringle, Mr. Justice Kelley and Mr. Justice Hodges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Day.

Plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, are in this court seeking to reverse a summary judgment dismissing their claim.

The trial court assigned as its reason for the dismissal that the plaintiffs were guilty of laches. In this writ of error it was as'serted by the plaintiffs that laches is an affirmative defense which must be affirmatively pleaded under C.R.C.P. 8, and further that the inaction of the plaintiffs in not prosecuting their action does not constitute laches as a matter of law.

We find the judgment of the court is correct though the wrong terminology was used.

What happened is that the plaintiffs filed suit in 1958. In 1967 — eight years and eight months after the filing of the first suit — no serious effort had been made to prosecute the case. When the first suit had been in the court for five years and four months without prosecution it was dismissed, but without prejudice. Two years later the plaintiffs filed a second identical suit and then permitted it to stand without effort to prosecute it. The court came to the conclusion that the delays were inexcusable. A review of the record and a reading of the commentary by the court leads inescapably to the conclusion that the dismissal was for lack of prosecution which the court termed “laches.” This was merely a misnomer. Dismissal for failure to prosecute was proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Pringle, Mr. Justice Kelley and Mr. Justice Hodges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 P.2d 312, 173 Colo. 321, 1970 Colo. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbine-valley-mutual-improvement-maintenance-assn-v-board-of-county-colo-1970.