Miller v. Bullock

2025 COA 35

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 25CA0094
• Status: Published

Opinion

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

SUMMARY March 27, 2025

2025COA35

No. 25CA0094, Miller v Bullock — Appeals — Appellate Procedure — Interlocutory Appeals in Civil Cases

A division of the court of appeals denies a petition for

interlocutory review filed under C.A.R. 4.2 because the petition fails

to meet, or plead, all the requirements under that rule. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2025COA35

Court of Appeals No. 25CA0094 El Paso County District Court No. 23CV32077 Honorable Gregory R. Werner, Judge

Aaron Miller,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Harold Oliver Bullock III and Raspberry Mountain Townhouses HOA,

Defendants-Appellants.

PETITION DENIED

Division A J. Jones, Freyre, and Johnson, JJ. PER CURIAM

Announced March 27, 2025

The Law Offices of Dianne Sawaya, LLC, Nathan T. Mattison, Jimoh Yussuf, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Retherford, Mullen & Moore, Michael A. Watts, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant Harold Oliver Bullock III

Lorber, Greenfield, & Olsen, LLP, Stuart D. Morse, Jeremy J. Carrier, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant Raspberry Mountain Townhouses HOA ¶1 Defendant, Raspberry Mountain Townhouses HOA (the HOA),

petitions this court under C.A.R. 4.2 to review the district court’s

denial of the HOA’s motion to vacate a default judgment order

entered against it. Because the HOA’s petition fails to satisfy the

requirements for review under section 13-4-102.1(1), C.R.S. 2024,

and C.A.R. 4.2, we deny the petition.

¶2 Under section 13-4-102.1(1) and C.A.R. 4.2(b), we may grant

interlocutory review in a civil case when “(1) immediate review may

promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of

the litigation; (2) the order involves a controlling question of law;

and (3) that question of law is unresolved.” Affiniti Colo., LLC v.

Kissinger & Fellman, P.C., 2019 COA 147, ¶ 12 (emphasis added).

Specifically, C.A.R. 4.2(d)(3)(B)(iii) requires that a petition filed

pursuant to this provision include “[t]he reasons why immediate

review may promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final

disposition of the litigation and why the order involves a controlling

and unresolved question of law.”

¶3 The HOA’s petition does not satisfy any of these requirements.

Instead, the HOA merely claims in its petition that “no other

adequate remedy is available” and argues that this court’s review

1 under C.A.R. 4.2 and reversal of the default judgment order would

ensure that the case proceeds “more fairly and efficiently” to trial.

While we construe this as an argument that immediate review may

promote a more orderly disposition, it fails to satisfy the

requirements of C.A.R. 4.2 because the court left unresolved for

trial the adjudication of causation and damages with respect to the

HOA, along with the plaintiff’s claims against a codefendant. Cf. S.

Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects Inc., 2023 COA 85, ¶ 14

(“[I]nterlocutory review would not be appropriate if other defendants

and other claims remained in the case . . . .”).

¶4 Moreover, the HOA does not assert or establish in its petition

the second and third requirements under C.A.R. 4.2(d)(3)(B)(iii) —

that the order involves a controlling and unresolved issue of law.

Rather, it cites numerous Colorado cases regarding default

judgments.

¶5 Because the petition does not establish the requirements of

C.A.R. 4.2(d)(3)(B)(iii), we deny the HOA’s petition for interlocutory

review.