context: Under these cireumstances, we reject wife's premise that the time for filing the motion for review began to run on the date of mailing of the clarification. To preserve her right to appellate review, wife had to file the motion to review within fifteen days of the date of mailing of the operative order, which here was the November order.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 910 P.2d 85, 88
citation_a.parenthetical: setting forth the time requirements under the prior rules for magistrates
citation_a.sentence: See In re Marriage of Talbott, supra; In re Marriage of McCord, 910 P.2d 85, 88 (Colo.App.1995)(setting forth the time requirements under the prior rules for magistrates); cf. People v. Retallack, 804 P.2d 279, 279-80 (Colo.App.1990)(in a criminal case, a motion filed after entry of the order challenged on appeal did not extend the time for filing notice of appeal with respect to the challenged order).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 804 P.2d 279, 279-80
citation_b.parenthetical: in a criminal case, a motion filed after entry of the order challenged on appeal did not extend the time for filing notice of appeal with respect to the challenged order
citation_b.sentence: See In re Marriage of Talbott, supra; In re Marriage of McCord, 910 P.2d 85, 88 (Colo.App.1995)(setting forth the time requirements under the prior rules for magistrates); cf. People v. Retallack, 804 P.2d 279, 279-80 (Colo.App.1990)(in a criminal case, a motion filed after entry of the order challenged on appeal did not extend the time for filing notice of appeal with respect to the challenged order).