Background
The district court dissolved Elizabeth Marie Nunez and Quincy Darnell Jones’s marriage in 2020 and entered temporary and permanent orders requiring Jones to pay child support for their child. In early 2025, the court modified his obligation after changes to the parties’ allocation of parenting time.
In October 2025, Jones moved under C.R.C.P. 60(b) to set aside all child-support orders, asserting that he had never been properly served when the dissolution proceeding began in April 2019. He argued that the orders were void for lack of personal jurisdiction and sought restitution of all child support paid since 2019. The district court denied relief because Jones had participated in the proceedings without contesting personal jurisdiction, and it later declined to reconsider that ruling or recuse the judge.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Even assuming Jones was not properly served at the outset, the court held that he waived any objection to defective service and personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it promptly and by actively participating in the litigation. He appeared at the temporary and permanent orders hearings, later sought modifications of parenting time and child support, and waited more than six years to raise the service issue.
Because Jones waived the jurisdictional defense, the child-support orders were not void on the ground asserted, and the district court properly denied his C.R.C.P. 60(b) motions and declined to reconsider. The appellate court also refused to consider his Servicemembers Civil Relief Act arguments because he had not shown that they were raised or decided in the district court.
Key Takeaways
- A party may waive objections to defective service and personal jurisdiction by actively participating in litigation without timely asserting them.
- Allegedly improper initial service did not make the child-support orders void where the husband participated for years before objecting.
- An appellate court generally will not consider a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act argument raised for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that personal-jurisdiction defenses must be asserted promptly. A litigant who participates in hearings and seeks affirmative relief cannot ordinarily wait years and then use an alleged service defect to invalidate prior domestic-relations orders.
For family-law practitioners, the opinion also illustrates the limits of C.R.C.P. 60(b)(3): although a genuinely void judgment must be set aside, active participation and delay may waive the underlying jurisdictional objection.