Bonanza Corp. v. Durbin

In Bonanza Corp. v. Durbin, 696 P.2d 818 (Colo. 1985) the supreme court addressed three orders of divisions of this court which had dismissed appeals based on the court's conclusion that the appellants' motions for new trial and to alter or amend the judgment had been filed untimely. The Bonanza court held that parties notified of the entry of judgments by mail under C.R.C.P. 58(a) are entitled to the three-day extension of time provided by C.R.C.P. 6(e) when filing their motions for new trial or to alter or amend judgment. In so holding, the supreme court rejected the reasoning of the court of appeals, which had held that C.R.C.P. 6(e) did not extend the time limit for filing a motion for new trial when a notice of entry of judgment was mailed to the parties. The supreme court concluded that, under C.R.C.P. 59, as then in effect, the "filing period for post-trial motions was triggered by mailing rather than the actual entry of judgment. . . ." Bonanza Corp. v. Durbin, supra, 696 P.2d 818 at 821. Accordingly, the court determined that, because of the mandatory mailing provision, C.R.C.P. 6(e) extended by three days the time within which to file post-trial motions when a notice of entry of judgment was mailed to the parties.