Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

T.W. Henritze v. The Borden Company

1. JUDGMENT — Motion to Vacate — Defense — Merit — Particularity — Rules. When motion to vacate judgment is made in accordance with R.C.P. Colo. 60(b), it must allege a defense which is prima facie meritorious; and furthermore, it must be stated with such particularity that the court can see that it is a substantial and meritorious defense, and not merely a technical or a frivolous one.

MR. JUSTICE HODGES delivered the opinion of the Court.Page 590

Henritze's motion to set aside a judgment entered pursuant to the terms of a cognovit note was denied. Henritze contends the trial court erred because his motion was sufficient to require the court to vacate the judgment.

When a motion to vacate a judgment is made, in accordance with R.C.P. Colo. 60(b), it must allege a defense which is prima facie meritorious; and also, it must be stated with such particularity that the court can see that it is a substantial and meritorious defense, and not merely a technical or a frivolous one. Burr v. Allard, 133 Colo. 270, 293 P.2d 969.

We have reviewed the record and particularly Henritze's motion to vacate. We agree with the trial court's denial of this motion, which failed to show any meritorious defense.

MR. JUSTICE HODGES delivered the opinion of the Court.Page 590

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE, MR. JUSTICE DAY and MR. JUSTICE PRINGLE concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HENRITZE v. BORDEN
(Oct 2, 1967)