Opinion
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972.
Page 349
Morris Rifkin, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Wilkins & Dworak, Richard Dworak, Denver, for defendants in error.
DWYER, Judge.
This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.
Bob Richardson, the defendant, was the developer of a subdivision in Boulder County, Colorado. He sold lots to the plaintiffs and in connection with these sales entered into contracts which imposed upon him certain obligations with respect to the streets and the water system in the subdivision. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in which they alleged that defendant had breached certain of the provisions of the contract and that he had failed to perform other obligations of the contract. A jury trial of the damage claim resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $15,000. The court also found in favor of plaintiffs on their claim for specific performance. The defendant, appearing here as plaintiff in error, seeks reversal of the judgments entered on the jury verdict and the findings of the court.
The merits of the issues raised and argued by defendant cannot be considered on the basis of the record on error.
C.R.C.P. 59(f) requires the party claiming error in the trial of a case of this type to file a motion for a new trial, and only questions presented in such motion will be considered by the appellate court on review. Defendant's motion for a new trial states that: (1) the judgment and verdict are contrary to law; (2) the judgment and verdict were excessive; and, (3) the judgment and verdict were not supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court has held that such general allegations of error contained in a motion for new trial do not comply with C.R.C.P. 59(f) and that they are insufficient to form any basis upon which a writ of error can be predicated. Martin v. Opdyke Agency, Inc., 156 Colo. 316, 398 P.2d 971.
Furthermore, the record on error does not contain a reporter's transcript, and the clerk's record does not indicate that the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the trial court or the verdict of the jury are beyond the issues made by the pleadings. In the absence of a transcript, it must be presumed that both the court's findings of fact and the jury's verdict are supported by the evidence and that no irregularity occurred in the trial. Meagher v. Neal, 130 Colo. 7, 272 P.2d 992; Oman v. Morris, 28 Colo.App. 124, 471 P.2d 430.
The defendant's failure to file a proper motion for a new trial and his failure to file a reporter's transcript preclude a consideration of his specifications of error.
It should be noted that the attorney appearing for defendant on this writ of error did not represent defendant in the trail court. The defendant was originally represented by other attorneys, but on the day of the trial, defendant discharged them. The attorneys were willing to proceed with the trial, but defendant insisted upon representing himself. A litigant is permitted to present his own case, but in doing so, he is required to comply with pertinent rules of procedure. Knapp v. Flemming, 127 Colo. 414, 258 P.2d 489.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur.