Laserfiche WebLink
Once a defendant subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a general <br />appearance, he cannot withdraw the eazlier appearance and escape thejurisdiction of the <br />court. See GYeaver Construction Co. v. District Court for EI Paso County, 545 P.2d 1042 <br />(Colo. 1976). <br />A county court's determinafion will not be overturned unless to con•ect any errors <br />of law committed by the trial court. The Court has reviewed the file and the record and <br />finds no error. The Defendants had knowledge of the pending procedure and submitted <br />an answer. The Defendants appeared on the day of trial and presented a defense. The <br />Defendants introduced several exhibits into evidence and examined witnesses. The <br />overall conduct of the Defendants overwhelmingly shows consent to the county court's <br />jurisdiction. The county court's finding of personal matter jurisdiction is AFFIRMED. <br />III. ATTORNEYS FEES <br />Finally, the Court toms to the issue of attorney's fees. The Plaintiff asks the <br />Court to award attorneys fees connected with this appeal. The Plaintiff argues the appeal <br />is frivolous and substantially groundless as there is no rational basis for the Defendants' <br />attack upon the trial court's jurisdiction. <br />In any civil action of any nature commenced or appealed in any court of record in <br />this state, the court may awazd as part of its judgment reasonable attorneys fees. See <br />C.R.S. §13-17-102(1). The court may awazd reasonable attorney fees against any <br />attorney or party who has brought or defended a civil action, that the court determines <br />lacked substantial justification. The definition lack of substantial justification is that the <br />action (here, the defense) was frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially <br />vexatious. See Haney v. City of Empire, 779 P.2d 1312 (Colo. 1989). However, no party <br />who is appearing without an attorney shall be assessed attorney fees unless the court finds <br />that the party cleazly knew or reasonably should have known that his action or defense, or <br />any part thereof, was substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially <br />vexatious. See C.R.S. §13-17-102(6). In order to determine whether to assess attorney <br />fees against a party, the court should consider the factors outlined in C.R.S. § 13-17- <br />103(1). <br />The Court finds the appeal of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction <br />substantially frivolous and substantially groundless. Each applicable factor outlined in <br />C.R.S. §13-17-103(1) will be discussedbelow. <br />First, the Court must consider the extent of effort made to determine the validity <br />of the appeal. After reviewing the file and the record, the Court finds nothing showing <br />that Defendants made any significant effort to determine the validity of this appeal. The <br />Defendants put forth minimal, if any, effort in determining the validity of their <br />jurisdictional claims, primarily citing Black's Law Dictionary. However, the Defendants <br />put forth a great effort in supporting their assertion that the county judge is a criminal and <br />trespasser. There is no showing that the Defendants lacked the resources and ability to <br />determine the validity of their appeal. Instead they chose to reseazch issues that were not <br />