Opinion ID: 2204353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Respondent Appeals Judge Lass' Order Denying Relief from Judgment

Text: Respondent appealed Judge Lass' order denying Rule 60(b) relief from a final judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals; they affirmed the order in an unpublished opinion on August 26, 2004. [12] Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals noted that Respondent moved to amend her notice of appeal to include Judge Lass' final judgment granting declaratory relief in 99CV277, alleging that Judge Lass lacked jurisdiction to enter an order in favor of the SCR HOA. The Court of Appeals denied Respondent's motion to amend her notice of appeal and specifically addressed Respondent's argument that Judge Lass lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief to the SCR HOA. The Court of Appeals stated: And, contrary to [Respondent's] contention, a judgment does not perpetually remain vulnerable to attack on jurisdictional grounds. A party may not collaterally attack a final judgment when, as here, the party had the opportunity to challenge subject matter jurisdiction during the original action. This should not have been new law to the Respondent as the Court of Appeals cited two of its prior reported opinions, a United States Supreme Court decision and the Restatement (Second) of Judgments.