Background
N.F. (father) and L.L.S. (mother), who were never married, stipulated in 2014 to a permanent parenting plan and child support for their child, A.J.F. The court adopted the stipulation. After mother sought enforcement concerning extracurricular-activity expenses in 2021, a magistrate granted relief, the district court adopted the ruling on review, and the court of appeals affirmed. Related appellate attorney-fee proceedings were also affirmed.
In December 2024, mother filed a second motion seeking enforcement of the 2014 stipulation and the first enforcement order. The magistrate granted the motion without a hearing. Rather than petitioning the district court to review that enforcement order, father filed a C.R.C.P. 59 motion with the magistrate. The magistrate denied it on the ground that a magistrate lacked authority to reconsider the ruling or grant postjudgment relief. Father appealed the second enforcement order and later sought district court review only of the magistrate’s order denying his Rule 59 motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In a paternity proceeding, section 19-1-108(5.5), C.R.S. 2025, requires a party to petition for district court review of a magistrate’s ruling before appealing it. Father conceded that he had not sought district court review of the second enforcement order before filing his appeal.
The court rejected father’s argument that ambiguity about whether the judicial officer was acting as a judge or magistrate excused his failure. Although orders in the case had sometimes misstated the officer’s role, father had previously sought district court review of rulings by the same magistrate and therefore knew the officer was acting as a magistrate. The court also declined to treat father’s Rule 59 motion as a petition for district court review. His later petition addressed only the magistrate’s refusal to consider that motion, was filed after the fourteen-day review deadline for the enforcement order had expired, and produced no district court analysis of his challenges to the enforcement order.
Key Takeaways
- District court review of a magistrate’s order is a prerequisite to appellate review in a Colorado paternity proceeding.
- A motion asking the magistrate for postjudgment relief does not substitute for a properly filed petition for district court review.
- Because father missed the fourteen-day deadline, the second enforcement order was no longer appealable.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties challenging magistrate rulings must follow the prescribed review path before approaching the court of appeals. Filing the wrong postjudgment motion—even when the judicial officer’s title has been inconsistently stated—may leave the appellate court without jurisdiction.
Practitioners should identify whether an order was issued by a magistrate and timely present each alleged error to the district court in a petition for review. A later challenge to the magistrate’s refusal to reconsider the order will not preserve an otherwise expired opportunity for review.