C.R.P.P. 24

History

Source: Entire chapter amended and adopted June 28, 2018, effective September 1, 2018. COMMENTS [1] Before the 2018 amendments, the rule was titled ‘‘Non-Appearance Hearings,’’ which engendered confusion for practitioners and self- represented parties as it referred to a hearing, which denotes an appearance, and then directed the party not to appear before the court. As a part of the 2018 amendments, the title of the rule changed to ‘‘Determination of Matters by Hearing Without Appearance’’ that more appro- priately describes the actual practice; the rule is useful for matters required by statute to have a hearing when a party appearance is not required or mandated. [2] The pre-2018 rule directed that matters which are ‘‘routine and unopposed’’ may be scheduled for hearing without appearance, how- ever, there was no definition contained within the rule for what matters are considered to be ‘‘routine and unopposed.’’ With the 2018 amendments, language defining a hearing with- out appearance was added in subsection (a), and language generally describing what may be set on the docket in subsection (b). Motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss are not appropriate for placement on a docket for hearing without appearance, and these motions should be filed using the procedure set forth in C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-15. [3] The rule does not contain a requirement that the court rule on a motion on the date scheduled for hearing without an appearance. There is confusion among practitioners and self-represented parties regarding when the court is required to rule on a matter scheduled under this rule; the court may rule on these matters in due course after the date for hearing without appearance has passed. This rule allows for expediting many matters before the probate court while specifying that matters may be de- termined by the probate court without an ap- pearance hearing, such as accommodating a real estate closing or other deadline such as a move-in date for a party. [4] Matters denoted as requiring immediate action should not be scheduled for hearing without appearance. [5] Concerns were raised regarding the short- ened time frame in subsection (c)(4) for ruling on motions contained within the rule and whether the failure of a party or counsel to respond within these time frames would un- fairly prejudice a party. Practitioners should bear in mind their ethical obligations to oppos- ing parties and counsel when choosing to schedule a motion that may be opposed on the docket for hearing without appearance. Sched- uling a motion on the docket for hearing with- out an appearance for determination on the mer- its where no responsive pleading has been filed with the court increases judicial economy by placing an opposing party or counsel on notice that a ruling may be entered unless a responsive pleading is filed with the court. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Rule 8.8 Non- Appearance Hearings in Probate Court’’, see 37 Colo. Law. 45 (Jan. 2008). For article, ‘‘New Probate Rule 24: Balancing Efficiency and Due Process’’, see 48 Colo. Law. 42 (Feb. 2019).