Colorado § 13-51-105 - Power and force of declaration.

§ 13-51-105. Power and force of declaration.

Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

Source: L. 23: p. 268, § 1. CSA: C. 93, § 78. CRS 53: § 77-11-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-1.

ANNOTATION

Declaratory judgment is conclusive as to questions raised by parties and passed upon by court. Atchison v. City of Englewood, 180 Colo. 407, 506 P.2d 140 (1973).

Declaratory judgment does not constitute absolute bar to subsequent proceedings where parties are seeking other remedies, even though based upon claims which could have been asserted in original action. Atchison v. City of Englewood, 180 Colo. 407, 506 P.2d 140 (1973); Near v. Calkins, 946 P.2d 537 (Colo. App. 1997).

The judgment leaves the parties to pursue the remedies which the law provides, after performing its office of declaring the existence of a certain liability. San Luis Power & Water Co. v. Trujillo, 93 Colo. 385, 26 P.2d 537 (1933).

Declaratory judgment on contract validity held not res judicata in subsequent action for reformation, rescission, and damages. Atchison v. City of Englewood, 180 Colo. 407, 506 P.2d 140 (1973).

Judgment is res judicata as to questions of statutory construction raised between the parties. Preventive relief in some instances is just as properly a matter of judicial function as remedial relief and if given by a declaratory order in the construction of a statute, it is res judicata as to the questions of construction raised between the parties and passed upon. San Luis Power & Water Co. v. Trujillo, 93 Colo. 385, 26 P.2d 537 (1933).

Subsequent relief may be sought by separate action. Subsequent relief sought by party to prior declaratory judgment action need not be sought by amendment of complaint in original action, but may be sought by separate action. Atchison v. City of Englewood, 180 Colo. 407, 506 P.2d 140 (1973).

Declaratory judgment should not be accorded to try a controversy piecemeal. In granting the remedy of declaratory judgment, it should not be accorded, however, to try a controversy by piecemeal, or to try particular issues without settling the entire controversy. Lane v. Page, 126 Colo. 560, 251 P.2d 1078 (1952).

Act not intended to be a substitute for proper pleading. The uniform act was never intended to be a substitute for, or a short cut to, proper pleading and specifically provides that all issues of fact shall be tried and determined as in other cases. Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Meyer, 110 Colo. 501, 136 P.2d 282 (1943).

For the procedure in cases when issues involve equity and actions at law, see Beacon Theatre, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959).

Declaratory judgment action is an appropriate means of testing the validity of a decree and resolving uncertainty as to the legal rights and status of the parties, even if the controversy has not yet ripened into litigation. In re Lockwood, 857 P.2d 557 (Colo. App. 1993).

Applied in Colo. & Utah Coal Co. v. Walter, 75 Colo. 489, 226 P. 864 (1924); Rice v. Franklin Loan & Fin. Co., 82 Colo. 163, 258 P. 223 (1927); Bedford v. Colo. Nat'l Bank, 104 Colo. 311, 91 P.2d 469 (1939); Colo. Nat'l Bank v. Bedford, 105 Colo. 373, 98 P.2d 1120, aff'd, 310 U.S. 41 (1940); Gordon v. Wheatridge Water Dist., 107 Colo. 128, 109 P.2d 899 (1941); McNichols v. City & County of Denver, 109 Colo. 269, 124 P.2d 601 (1942); Carpenter v. Carman Distrib. Co., 111 Colo. 566, 144 P.2d 770 (1943); Woodridge v. Denver & R. G. R. R., 118 Colo. 25, 191 P.2d 882 (1948); Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. W. Elec. Co., 191 Colo. 128, 551 P.2d 1065 (1976); Pennobscot, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 642 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1982).