dissenting:
The majority holds that E.J.R. has a vested privacy interest in his criminal records created by the district court’s 1991 sealing order (1991 order). In its desire to reach this conclusion, the majority characterizes as mere error the fact that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to seal the record of E.J.R.’s conviction. Because the majority’s rationalization contravenes the fundamental principle that a court must have *227jurisdiction to enter a valid order, I respectfully dissent.
I.
The facts set forth in the majority opinion accurately reflect the procedural history of E.J.R.’s petition to seal the records relating to his 1986 criminal conviction.
A.
My analysis begins with the fundamental premise that records of official actions in criminal proceedings are indeed public records. Section 24-72-303, 10B C.R.S. (1988) provides that “[s]ueh records of official actions shall be maintained by the particular criminal justice agency which took the action and shall be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times, except as provided in this part 3 or as otherwise provided by law.” Official actions include records of arrests, indictments, charging by information and final case dispositions. § 24-72-302(6) & (7), 10B C.R.S. (1988). We have explained that any privacy right a convicted person may have in records of criminal proceedings stems solely from statutory enactments that limit access to otherwise public information.7 People v. D.K.B., 843 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Colo.1993).
In 1977, the General Assembly enacted the Criminal Justice Records Act (sealing statute) under which a person could petition the district court to seal records dealing with criminal proceedings.8 § 24-72-308(l)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1978). In 1988, the General Assembly amended the statute by placing express limitations on the district court’s authority to seal criminal records. The reenacted statute eliminated the statutory provision which allowed courts to seal records pertaining to criminal convictions, restricting a court’s sealing power to those instances where a party in interest “was not charged, in any case which was completely dismissed, or in any case in which said person in interest was acquitted.” § 24-72-308(l)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1988).9 In its decision to unseal E.J.R.’s records, the district court considered the relationship between the repealed and reenacted version of the sealing statute and concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction to enter the 1991 order.
We considered the effect of the repeal and reenactment of the sealing statute in People v. D.K.B., 843 P.2d 1326 (Colo.1993). In D.K.B. we explained “[njeither this court nor the United States Supreme Court has held that a convicted person has a right to privacy in his arrest and conviction records.” D.K.B., 843 P.2d at 1330. There, we held that because a person’s right to seal conviction records was created by statute, “the ability of respondents to petition and be heard under the 1977 statute was ‘extinguished’ by its repeal.” Id. at 1331.
The majority attempts to distinguish D.K.B. because there the court had not yet entered a sealing order, and here the court had ordered E.J.R.’s records sealed. This distinction ignores the premise underlying our holding in D.K.B. that “no proceedings can be pursued under [a] repealed statute, though begun before the repeal, unless such proceedings be authorized under a special clause in the repealing act.” D.K.B., 843 P.2d at 1331; see also Norman J. Singer, *228Sutherland Statutory Construction § 23.07 (5th ed. 1993) which explains:
The repeal of a statute without any reservation takes away all remedies given by the repealed statute and defeats all actions and proceedings pending under it at the time of its repeal.... Where the repeal is clearly stated, the courts have no responsibility or authority but to follow and apply the legislative will as expressed.
While it is true that an act of repeal does not divest a party of vested property or contract rights, id. § 23.34, the right must have accrued under the repealed statute. See also Coombes v. Getz, 285 U.S. 434, 52 S.Ct. 435, 76 L.Ed. 866 (1932) (explaining property and contract rights which have vested before a repealing act cannot be divested solely based on repeal). It follows, then, that individuals convicted of a crime who petitioned to seal their records prior to April 20, 1988, have a vested right in their' sealing orders. These orders accrued under the existing statute. E.J.R. is not in this position. His petition was filed in 1991, over two years after the statute was repealed. Just as repeal of § 24-72-308(l)(a) extinguished D.K.B.’s right to petition for a sealing order, the repeal also extinguished the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction to enter E.J.R.’s order. Accordingly, any order to seal the records of a criminal conviction entered after April 20, 1988, including E.J.R.’s 1991 order, is void because the district court no longer had the statutory authority to enter such an order.
In his brief, E.J.R. stated that “[wjhether or not the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction is of no consequence here.” The majority attempts to dismiss this defect by calling the entry of the judgment an error. Both of these statements are simply incorrect. “[A] court must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the issue to be decided if its judgment is to be valid.” In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168, 170 (Colo.1981). We have recognized that district courts are courts of general jurisdiction and have “sweeping jurisdictional powers in the absence of limiting legislation.” See Meyer v. Lamm, 846 P.2d 862, 869 (Colo.1993) (quoting In re A.W., 637 P.2d 366, 373-74 (Colo.1981) (emphasis supplied)). While it is true that courts generally have power to adjudicate issues in the class of suits to which a particular case belongs, maj. op. at 224, when the General Assembly explicitly limits a court’s jurisdiction, a court has no option but to abide by the legislature’s intent.10 I am not persuaded by the majority’s view that the “district court did not lose subject matter jurisdiction to interpret the amended statute as a consequence of the repeal and reenactment.” Maj. op. at 225. The General Assembly explicitly excluded records of criminal convictions from the sealing statute, leaving no room for “interpretation.” This explicit limitation made entry of the 1991 order void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We have considered the effect of a void judgment on numerous occasions and have consistently held that a judgement entered where a jurisdictional defects exist is a nullity. See, e.g., People v. Dillon, 655 P.2d 841 (Colo.1982) (“It is axiomatic that any action taken by a court when it lacked jurisdiction is a nullity.” (citations omitted)); Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 138 Colo. 171, 330 P.2d 1116 (1958) (same), cert. denied 359 U.S. 926, 79 S.Ct. 609, 3 L.Ed.2d 629 (1959); see also In re Marriage of Pierce, 720 P.2d 591 (Colo.App.1985) (same). We were emphatic about the effect of a void judgment in Davidson:
A judgment entered where such a defect exists [lack of subject matter jurisdiction] has neither life nor incipience, and a court is impuissant to invest the judgment with even a fleeting spark of vitality, but can only determine it to be what it is — a nothing, a nullity. Being naught, it may be attacked directly or collaterally at any time. Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 138 Colo. 171, 175, 330 P.2d 1116, 1118-19.
*229Further, we have explained that a trial court has no discretion in setting aside a judgment that is void. Stroud, 631 P.2d at 170 n. 5 (A “judgment either is void or it isn’t and relief must be afforded accordingly.”).
The majority correctly points out that the People did not appeal the original sealing order. Maj. op. at 226. Failure to appeal, however, does not remedy a deficiency in subject matter jurisdiction. The rules of civil procedure allow a party to move for relief from a final judgment upon recognition of this basic failure.11 The rule does not require that a party exhaust any avenue of direct appeal prior to moving for relief from a final judgment. The majority relies on Lubben v. Selective Serv. System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir.1972) to support its contention that failure to appeal precludes attack of a judgment for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Lubben, however, did not deal with a void judgment, but rather, addressed a motion for relief under Rule 6Q(b)(6), the residual clause of Federal Rule 60(b), which covers motions for relief from judgment for any reason other than those enumerated in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5). While a Rule 60(b) motion should not be used to circumvent proper appeal, we have explained the importance of subject matter jurisdiction permits the issue to be raised at any time. Sanchez v. State, 730 P.2d 328 (Colo.1986); Greene v. Phares, 124 Colo. 433, 237 P.2d 1078 (1951). Thus, the passage of time is not dispositive because a judgment attacked as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations set forth in Rule 60(b)(3). United Bank of Boulder, N.A v. Buchanan, 836 P.2d 473 (Colo.App.1992).12
I appreciate the importance of final judgments emphasized by the majority. I do not believe, however, that we can allow a wrongfully entered order to stand merely to preserve status quo.
B.
In his brief, E.J.R. relies on two cases where federal statutes were ruled unconstitutional to support his res judicata argument. Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 60 S.Ct. 317, 84 L.Ed. 329 (1940); Douglas-Guardian Warehouse v. Posey, 486 F.2d 739 (10th Cir.1973). The majority also relies on Chicot County for the proposition that judgments entered where the jurisdiction is later challenged in a collateral proceeding should not be considered a nullity. Maj. op. at 225. It points out that the Court in Chicot County refused to disturb rights previously adjudicated under an unconstitutional statute. In my view neither this case nor Douglas-Guardian Warehouse is sufficiently analogous to provide support for E.J.R.’s argument. Both cases deal with federal court jurisdiction, and more importantly the constitutionality of the statute conferring jurisdiction. Further, both cases deal with collateral attacks on jurisdiction, not with a direct attack.13 Here, however, we deal with the application of a constitutional statute and a direct attack on jurisdiction.
In Chicot County, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a federal district court ruling after the Supreme Court held that the statute creating federal court jurisdiction to enter the ruling was unconstitutional. The Court concluded determinations of unconstitutionality must be taken “with qualifications” and that such holdings “demand exam*230ination.” Chicot County, 308 U.S. at 374, 60 S.Ct. at 319. After explaining that the jurisdiction of a lower federal court is a question for “judicial determination,” the Court concluded that when “their [lower court] judgments and decrees are erroneous and may, upon a writ of error or appeal, be reversed for cause_they are not absolute nullities.” Id. at 376, 60 S.Ct. at 320. Here, however, we have consistently held that a state court order entered without subject matter jurisdiction is a nullity.14
E.J.R. points out that the Chicot County Court admonished lower courts to consider the “public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application ...” when considering res judicata arguments. Chicot County, 308 U.S. at 374, 60 S.Ct. at 319. Consideration of the public policy here requires that E.J.R.’s records be unsealed. The General Assembly expressly repealed a convicted criminal defendant’s ability to seal criminal justice records, evincing a policy in direct conflict with E.J.R.’s argument.
E.J.R. contends that Douglas-Guardian Warehouse v. Posey, 486 F.2d 739 (10th Cir.1973) supports his argument that the 1991 order cannot be disturbed under the doctrine of res judicata. In Douglas-Guardian Warehouse the plaintiffs brought an action in federal court seeking to enjoin the enforcement of state court replevin actions because the Supreme Court ruled that similar replev-in statutes were unconstitutional. Douglas-Guardian, 486 F.2d at 741. Douglas-Guardian again deals with the constitutionality of a statute.15 The Douglas-Guardian court explained “lawfully acquired vested rights in the form of state judgments ... should not be lightly ignored.” Id. at 743 (emphasis supplied). Here, however, we do not deal with a lawfully acquired right because no statutory authority existed for the court to enter the 1991 order.
II.
In my view examination of any court order begins with an inquiry into the court’s authority to enter the ruling. The majority’s conclusion that a court can create subject matter jurisdiction when none exists by interpreting a statute in derogation of the explicit statutory provisions should not be condoned. Because the district court properly concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter its 1991 order, I would discharge the rule.
I am authorized to say that Justice ERICKSON and Justice YOLLACK, join in this dissent.
. While we have recognized a privacy interest in records of criminal proceedings, see Davidson v. Dill, 180 Colo. 123, 503 P.2d 157 (1972), we have explained this privacy right is qualified rather than absolute. People v. D.K.B., 843 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Colo.1993).
. Section 24-72-308(l)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1978), Sealing or limiting release of records provided in pertinent part:
Any person in interest may petition the court of his residence or of the district court in which the arrest and criminal records information pertaining to him is located for the sealing of all or any part of said record, except basic identification information.
.Act approved April 20, 1988, ch. 190, sec. 3, 1988 Colo.Sess.Laws 979, 979-81. Section 24-72-308(l)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1988) now provides:
Any person in interest may petition the district court of the district in which any arrest and criminal records pertaining to said person in interest is located for the sealing of all said records, except basic identification information, if the records are a record of official actions involving a criminal offense for which said person in interest was not charged, in any case which was completely dismissed, or in any case in which said person in interest was acquitted.
. Further, in People v. Wright, 43 Colo.App. 30, 31, 598 P.2d 157, 158 (Colo.App.1979) the court of appeals explained that because the "Criminal Justice Records Act provides a comprehensive scheme concerning criminal records, the statutory remedies are exclusive for those persons whose records come within the purview of the statute.” (emphasis supplied).
. C.R.C.P. 60(b) provides:
On motion and on such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (3) the judgment is void.
. E.J.R. argues the District Attorney engaged in an impermissible collateral attack on the 1991 order. This is not the case. While the District Attorney initiated the petition after filing additional criminal charges, the petition to unseal the records is a direct attack on the 1991 Order brought in the same court. Further, no support exists for E.J.R.'s argument that collateral attack on a void judgement is improper. "There is no question but that in Colorado, as elsewhere, a judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and may be attacked directly or collaterally." In re Marriage of Stroud, 631 P.2d 168, 170 (Colo.1981) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
.Chicot County provides no guidance with respect to a direct attack under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(3) because Chicot County was decided in 1940, six years before the adoption of Federal Rule 60(b)(4). See Annotation, Milton Roberts, Lack of Jurisdiction, or Jurisdictional Error, Rendering Federal District Court Judgment "Void” for Purposes of Relief Under Rule 60(b)(4) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 59 ALR Fed. 831 § 11 (1982 & 1994 Supp.).
. Contrary to E.J.R.'s contention, Chicot County does not stand for the proposition that all judgments entered under an unconstitutional statute should be considered res judicata. See United States v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 514, 60 S.Ct. 653, 657, 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940) ("In the Chicot County case no inflexible rule as to collateral objection in general to judgments was declared. We explicitly limited our examination to the effect of a subsequent invalidation of the applicable jurisdictional statute upon an existing judgment in bankruptcy.").
. In Douglas-Guardian, the court explained it was "not aware of any federal statute which broadly authorizes a federal injunction to stay state court proceedings where the state statute involved has been subsequently found unconstitutional in a federal court.” Id. at 743. The court refused to expand its jurisdiction by “carv[ing] out a new exception to § 2283.” Id. We, too, should refuse to create district court jurisdiction when none exists.