PERMFILE105571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In challenging the Court's jurisdiction, Defendants rely on their belief that they entered their appearance before the County Court as a "special appearance." A "special appeazance" might have some relevance to this case had Defendants' sole reason for appearing been to challenge the Court's personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Defendants have, however, challenged the County Court's subject matter jurisdiction. As a consequence the Defendants' appearance was not a "special appeazance," Minneaz v. Minnear, 281 P2d 517 (Colo 1955). 2. Personal Jurisdiction. With regard to Defendants' claim the Court somehow lacked personaljurisdiction, the record in this case contains the return of service of Summons and Complaint upon both of the Defendants. Defendants were served on Apri121, 2003 at their home in the County of Gilpin. No issue has been raised as to the propriety of such service under C.R.C.P. 4(e). The Court's finding of personal jurisdiction is amply supported by the record in this matter. The Defendants have advanced no factual or legal justification for reversal of the County Court's findings with respect to either personal or the subject matterjurisdiction. 3. Frivolous Appeal. There is no rational basis for the Defendants' attack upon the-trial court's jurisdiction. Under §13-17-102(2) and (6) C.R.S., the County is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees incurred in defending this frivolous appeal. §13-17-102(2) provides for the award of reasonable attorney's fees against any party who has defended a civil action which defense in whole or in part the Court determines lacked substantialjustification. This statute includes civil actions ofany nature which are appealed in any Court of record in this State. §13-17-102(6) deals with civil actions in which no attorney has appeared For the party against whom fees are being sought. Under such 5