Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Affordable Country Homes, LLC v. Smith

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 4, 2008No. 06CA2222Published

1Concurrence

Judge BERNARD

specially concurring.

I concur with the result reached by the majority that ACH was not entitled to post-judgment relief in this case under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(2). It is my view that most of the relief ACH requested was affirmative relief, unavailable under C.R.C.P. 60(b), which should have been brought in a separate claim. ACH's requests to reform the settlement agreement, to enter a cash judgment against Smith and Bunnell, and to award ACH exemplary damages were beyond the relief authorized by C.R.C.P. 60(b), and, therefore, beyond the trial court's reach here.

However, I respectfully…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Calderon v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Salim Aoude v. Mobil Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API