Details of the Motion for Reconsideration
The Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Void Ab Initio centers on challenging a prior court ruling that imposed time limitations on a challenge to child support orders, simultaneously detailing a foundational collapse in jurisdiction and record integrity over a decade of enforcement.
The Petitioner, Gerald Paul Hershfeldt, filed the Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59 and the court's inherent authority, asserting that the court's initial order contained fundamental legal and procedural errors.
The motion specifically invoked Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (C.R.C.P.) 60(b)(4) as the legal mechanism for relief, which applies to judgments considered void. The Petitioner asserted that the court's denial, which relied on deadlines such as the CRM Rule 7 timeframes, fundamentally misapplied the law.
Opposition
Arthur J. Spicciati, Assistant Larimer County Attorney, filed a response on October 20, 2025, objecting to the motions and requesting denial or a hearing. The response contended that the Petitioner failed to state a clear factual basis for the orders being invalid and offered no clear, uncontested factual explanation of how the child support has been satisfied.
CRITICAL ERROR: The People's opposition document (Filing ID B6FEE92CC9A64) was filed in the wrong case number (2015 JV 229), a juvenile dependency case concerning different children, and not in 2015 DR 229 (this dissolution case).
The Petitioner demanded that the court strike it as a legal nullity.
Which Order Is Being Enforced?
The central question of this case: If the Court was "UNABLE TO ENTER SUPPORT ORDERS" on June 10, 2015, which of four conflicting entries constitutes the valid, enforceable order that has been the basis for a decade of enforcement actions?
Minute Order states court adopts "CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,028/MO"
Decree of Dissolution of Marriage instructs support "will be paid directly to Petitioner rather than an income assignment"
NOTE: No dollar amount specified in Decree
Minute Order (No Print) - THE DISPOSITIVE FINDING:
"UNABLE TO ENTER SUPPORT ORDERS AS WE ARE MISSING SSN FOR CHILDREN; REQUESTED OF PARTIES IN COURT ON 6/9/15"
This is the court's final statement on its own authority to enter support orders.
Child Support Order 1st ALL FIELDS N/A
Filing ID: N/A | Authorizer: N/A | Filing Party: N/A | Organization: N/A
This entry appeared seven years after enforcement began and lacks ALL required metadata per Colorado Chief Justice Directive 05-01.
The Fundamental Question
Four conflicting entries. One claims $1,028/month. One provides no amount. One states the court was unable to enter orders. One appears seven years later with no metadata.
WHERE IS THE ORDER?
Legal Mechanism: C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4)
The Petitioner invoked Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), which provides relief from a judgment that is void.
Why C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) Applies
- No Time Limit: Unlike other subsections of Rule 60(b), relief under subsection (4) has no time restriction when the judgment is void
- Jurisdictional Defects: A judgment is void when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or fails to comply with due process requirements
- Void Ab Initio: A void judgment is treated as if it never existed and can be challenged at any time
Court's Misapplication of Law
The court's denial cited "timeframes" under CRM Rule 7, but this fundamentally misunderstands the law:
- CRM Rule 7 timeframes apply to valid judgments
- C.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) applies to void judgments
- A void judgment has no time limit for challenge
The court applied timeframes to a judgment the Petitioner claims never legally existed.
Jurisdictional Chaos: Two States, No Authority
For a decade, Colorado and South Dakota engaged in an informal "handshake agreement" creating a jurisdictional black hole where both states enforced, but neither accepted responsibility.
Colorado's Position
Susan Martens (CO Technician), February 3, 2025:
"South Dakota is in charge of this case"
South Dakota's Position
Jane Rodig (SD Official):
"no jurisdiction!"
The Contradictions
Colorado Supervisor Jennifer Brant (March 14, 2025): Contradicted Martens, claiming Colorado had jurisdiction
Result: Mutual deniability, no accountability, continuous enforcement without clear legal authority
UIFSA Violations
- May 2017: South Dakota enforcement begins without required UIFSA registration
- September 2019: South Dakota case closed "per obligee request"
- February 2021: South Dakota enforcement reopened
- Throughout: Colorado retained Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ) but deferred to South Dakota
This informal arrangement bypassed mandatory federal registration requirements
Statutory and Constitutional Violations
1. Worksheet Fraud FOUNDATIONAL
2015 Separation Agreement: Explicitly established "Shared Physical Care" arrangement
Required Form: Worksheet B (Shared Physical Care)
Form Used: Worksheet A (Sole Physical Care)
Result: 8-10x overcharge ($897-$997/month excess)
Agency officials acknowledged error but perpetuated it through 2022 modification
2. Collections During State-Funded Care
Period: January 2022 - March 2023 (15+ months)
Status: Emma in state-funded residential treatment
Collections: $9,330 seized
Violation: Direct violation of 45 C.F.R. ยง 303.11 (federal regulation prohibiting collection when child is in state-funded care)
3. Enforcement After Obligee Waiver
November 1, 2022: Brooke Hershfeldt provided written waiver: "I have given consent to waive all back child support"
Agency Response: Ignored waiver, continued enforcement for three more years
Additional Collections: $14,928+ seized after valid waiver
4. Due Process Violations (Turner v. Rogers)
July 2023: Driver's license suspended while unemployed and homeless
December 23, 2024: Driver's license suspended third time - despite active wage garnishment already in place
Petitioner Status (July 2023): Unemployed, homeless, no income
Required Hearing: Ability-to-pay determination (per U.S. Supreme Court in Turner v. Rogers)
Hearing Provided: NONE
Constitutional violation: Punitive enforcement against indigent individual without due process. Third suspension occurred despite compliance mechanism (wage garnishment) already active.
5. Adoption Subsidy Cap Violation
Regulation: 9 CCR 2504-1-6.701(B) - Child support cannot exceed monthly Adoption Assistance Subsidy (AAS)
AAS Payment: $464/month per child (total $928/month for both children)
Legal Maximum: $928/month
Amount Ordered: $1,028-$1,128/month
Direct violation of Colorado state regulation
Quantifiable Harm and Constitutional Impact
Financial Harm
- Uncredited Direct Payments: $51,432 (estimated)
- Worksheet Fraud Overcharge: $50,000-$70,000
- Collections During State Care: $9,330
- Post-Waiver Collections: $14,928+
- Total Estimated Harm: $125,690 - $145,690
Human Cost
Petitioner (Gerald Hershfeldt)
- May 2023 - November 15, 2024: 527 days of documented homelessness
- Multiple License Suspensions: 2018, 2019, 2022, 2023, 2024
- Credit Destruction: Dual-state reporting as delinquent
- Employment Impact: Lost job June 2022, inability to secure housing blocked reemployment
Emma (Daughter)
- October 2022: Clinical team recommended discharge to father's care - overruled by child support officials
- Administrative Justification: Father needed to "maintain a home" (blocked by enforcement actions)
- September 8, 2025: Made homeless on 19th birthday as direct result of enforcement-caused instability
Systemic sabotage of family reunification through circular administrative trap
Relief Demanded
Immediate Relief
- Vacate November 2, 2025 Order: Court's denial of Motion to Void Ab Initio
- Grant Motion to Void Ab Initio: Declare all child support orders void from inception
- Halt All Enforcement: Immediate cessation of collections, license suspensions, credit reporting
- Evidentiary Hearing: Full hearing on jurisdictional defects and record integrity
Corrective Relief
- Full Accounting: Forensic audit of all payments, credits, and collections
- Restitution: Return of all improperly collected funds
- Credit Repair: Removal of all derogatory reporting from credit bureaus
- License Restoration: Immediate reinstatement without fees
Systemic Relief
- Join Necessary Parties: Colorado and South Dakota child support agencies as defendants
- Jurisdictional Determination: Court ruling on which state (if any) had authority
- Record Correction: Official correction of Register of Actions deficiencies
- Investigation: Inquiry into falsified administrative entries and potential criminal violations
The Stakes
This is not merely about child support. This is about:
- The integrity of court records
- The limits of administrative authority
- Constitutional protections for indigent defendants
- The accountability of enforcement agencies
If a judgment can be enforced for a decade despite jurisdictional defects, contradictory orders, and acknowledged errors, what protection does any citizen have against systemic abuse?