Dennis Graham

In this case, plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that a 1998 promissory note, personal guarantees, and deed of trust securing real estate were unenforceable because the six-year statute of limitations had expired in 2004 with no payments made. Defendant Bevan Properties counterclaimed to enforce the note and foreclose on the deed of trust, arguing that the plaintiffs' filing revived the claims under Colorado's counterclaim revival statute, section 13-80-109, and that oral acknowledgments of the debt created a factual issue. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed, holding as a matter of first impression that an action for declaratory judgment of nonliability based on the statute of limitations does not trigger the revival statute, and that the defendant's affidavit failed to show a written acknowledgment required to raise a genuine issue of material fact under related statutes.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, defendant Leotis Durwin Greer was convicted by a jury of sexual assault on a child, sexual assault as part of a pattern of sexual abuse, and multiple counts of unlawful sexual contact arising from incidents involving two teenage employees at a fast-food restaurant he managed. The trial court merged the unlawful sexual contact convictions into one count. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the merged unlawful sexual contact convictions but affirmed the remaining convictions and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the defendant's double jeopardy claim was unpreserved and reviewed only for plain error, concluding that the sexual assault convictions did not violate double jeopardy because the unit of prosecution allowed multiple charges based on distinct volitional acts separated by time and intervening events. The court also rejected claims regarding untimely disclosure of an expert witness, finding no prejudice or due process violation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved two groups of plaintiffs who were injured in car accidents and held American Family auto insurance policies that provided only basic personal injury protection (PIP) benefits rather than the enhanced PIP coverage required under the former Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (CAARA). The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and related claims, alleging that American Family had failed to timely disclose and provide the enhanced benefits despite knowing of its noncompliance since 2000; prior class actions (French, Marshall, and Hicks) had addressed similar issues, with Hicks resulting in policy reformation in 2005. The trial courts granted summary judgment to American Family, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the three-year statute of limitations had expired before the 2008 filings. The court reasoned that the claims accrued when plaintiffs knew the material facts about their policies and benefits paid, not when they learned of the legal requirement for enhanced coverage or the reformation order, and that neither the prior class actions nor the Hicks proceedings tolled the limitations period sufficiently to preserve the claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned Leggett & Platt and The Gap's claim for a refund of Thornton sales taxes paid on store fixtures manufactured in Thornton and loaded onto The Gap's own or hired carriers for delivery to stores outside the city. The court affirmed denial of the refund, holding that the taxable retail sales occurred in Thornton when the buyer took possession at the seller's loading dock. It reasoned that the city code required the seller or its agent to make delivery for the interstate or intrastate exemptions to apply, that the transactions were not in interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, and that no due process violation occurred because the sales took place within the city.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

Chad Carter purchased a defective 2006 Mustang from Brighton Ford and sued the dealer for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and revocation of acceptance under the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code after the vehicle required repeated repairs and was inoperable for over thirty days. The trial court granted summary judgment to Brighton Ford, dismissing the claims under the innocent seller statute, which bars product liability actions against sellers who are not manufacturers. The appellate court reversed and remanded, reasoning that the claims were contractual in nature and sought only economic damages for defects affecting the product's value, not tort-based recovery for personal injury, death, or damage from an unreasonably dangerous product, so the innocent seller statute did not apply.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

A real estate developer sued a water and sanitation district for breach of contract and promissory estoppel after the district stopped reserving water taps based on availability-of-service charges and instead required outright purchase. The developer sought specific performance to compel the district to reserve the taps for its property development, along with money damages. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the specific performance claim, treating undisputed facts as supporting judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that sovereign immunity principles bar specific performance against governmental entities in contract actions, as it would improperly allow judicial compulsion of executive functions, consistent with precedents distinguishing damages claims from equitable relief.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Douglas Bruce's appeal of a trial court ruling that upheld the City of Colorado Springs's single-subject ordinance for ballot initiatives under City Code section 5.1.503 and found that his proposed initiative violated the rule by addressing multiple subjects. The initiative aimed to restrict the city's use of non-business entities for public works projects funded by fees outside TABOR limits. The court also reviewed the denial of Bruce's motion to disqualify the trial judge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's orders, holding that the ordinance was constitutional as it mirrored state constitutional requirements to prevent logrolling and ensure voter clarity, that the petition improperly combined disconnected provisions rendering titling impossible, and that the disqualification motion lacked sufficient factual support for bias beyond prior rulings. The decision rested on the ordinance's alignment with Colo. Const. art. V, § 1(5.5) and procedural standards under C.R.C.P. 97.

electionsprocedure

The case involved Thomas Lynn O'Hara III, who was convicted of distributing a schedule II controlled substance, adjudicated a habitual criminal, and sentenced to ninety-six years in prison after wiretap evidence implicated him as a methamphetamine supplier. On appeal, O'Hara challenged the admission of the wiretap evidence on grounds that the elected district attorney did not personally apply for or authorize it, and also contested the sufficiency of his Curtis advisement on his right to testify. The court interpreted Colorado's wiretap statute (section 16-15-102) as requiring specific authorization by the elected district attorney or attorney general for each application, though not personal submission, and found no evidence or finding in the record of such authorization, leading to a remand for a hearing on that issue. If authorization is confirmed, the conviction stands; otherwise, it is reversed. The court declined to review the Curtis advisement claim on direct appeal, holding that such issues are reserved for post-conviction proceedings under existing precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Andersen Mahon Enterprises appealing the dismissal of its inverse condemnation counterclaim against the City of Colorado Springs. The property owner alleged that the city's pre-condemnation activities and delays regarding a road expansion project constituted a de facto taking, resulting in lost rental income from 2007 to 2008. The trial court dismissed the claim, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that under Colorado precedent, the city's conduct did not legally interfere with the owner's use or disposition of the property before actual possession was taken in September 2008.

property

In Barfield v. Hall Realty, Inc., a buyer of resort property sued the transaction broker for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent representation, and fraudulent concealment after discovering that the property lacked required permits from the county and state health department to operate as a twelve-site RV park, contrary to the broker's descriptions of it as a turn-key business opportunity. The trial court granted summary judgment to the broker, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that under Colorado's brokerage statute, transaction brokers owe only limited duties and have no obligation to investigate or verify the accuracy of property descriptions or permits unless they have actual knowledge of adverse facts; the undisputed evidence showed the broker lacked such knowledge and merely described the property as it appeared to be operating at the time of listing. The court also held that allegations of reckless indifference were insufficient to establish the actual knowledge required for a fraudulent concealment claim.

propertybusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a wife's petition to declare her 2004 remarriage to her husband invalid under Colorado law after their prior 1999 dissolution, based on her claim that she agreed to remarry in reliance on his false representation that he had a terminal illness. The trial court invalidated the marriage after a hearing, entered stipulated permanent orders on property and maintenance, and denied the husband's request for attorney fees. On appeal, the court held that it had jurisdiction because the notice was filed within 45 days of the final permanent orders rather than the earlier invalidity decree. It further ruled that a preponderance of the evidence standard applied to the fraud claim, that the trial court's findings of a fraudulent misrepresentation going to the essence of the marriage were supported by the record, and that the husband was bound by the parties' stipulation to pay their own fees.

family law

In Silva v. Wilcox, the plaintiff sued the defendant for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident and sought damages that included compensation for lost future wages. The defendant appealed multiple trial court rulings from the second trial, including the exclusion of evidence about the plaintiff's immigration status and driver's license from Mexico, the denial of a request to reopen discovery, the giving of a negligence per se jury instruction based on a municipal ordinance, and the denial of a motion for a new trial. The Colorado Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings, primarily to assess whether the exclusion of immigration status evidence was error, because the trial court had granted the motion in limine without an evidentiary hearing or CRE 403 analysis and no offer of proof had been made at trial. The court noted that the first trial had ended in a hung jury and that the second trial resulted in a damages award to the plaintiff.

immigrationproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a proposed class action lawsuit brought by plaintiff Trina Garcia against ten automobile dealerships and an individual under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the identity and cost of dealer-added aftermarket products when selling new vehicles. The trial court had granted class certification for two proposed classes of purchasers, and the defendants petitioned for interlocutory review. The appellate court first determined that the petition was timely filed under applicable statutes and rules for computing deadlines. It then reversed the certification order, holding that there was no classwide theory of injury or causation that could be applied uniformly, particularly for purchasers who received the products, and that the plaintiff could not adequately represent the class because individualized issues such as negotiations and pricing would predominate. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved two related lawsuits against a nursing home operator for negligence in caring for Hollis Sawyer during her residency. After Mrs. Sawyer died, her original negligence complaint was dismissed under C.R.C.P. 25(a)(1) for failure to substitute parties, and her daughters' later wrongful death and CCPA claims were dismissed on claim preclusion grounds. The court reversed both dismissals, reasoning that the suggestion of death filed by counsel was never personally served on the daughters as nonparty successors under C.R.C.P. 4, so the 90-day substitution period never began and the trial court lacked authority to dismiss the first action. Without a valid final judgment in the first lawsuit, claim preclusion could not bar the second lawsuit, and the daughters should have been allowed to intervene.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved defendant Reynaldo Villa's appeal of his conviction for sexual assault on a three-year-old child and the resulting indeterminate sentence. The trial court allowed multiple witnesses to testify about the child's out-of-court statements describing the assault and admitted evidence of the defendant's prior sexual assaults on another child under Colorado's prior acts statute and CRE 404(b). The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements and prior acts evidence. However, it vacated the sentence because the fifteen-year minimum term exceeded the statutory maximum authorized for a class four felony under the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Anthony Douglas Riley, who was convicted by a jury of attempted reckless manslaughter, reckless second degree assault, and a crime of violence stemming from a stabbing incident during a confrontation outside a store. Riley appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its jury instructions on self-defense, including refusing certain instructions and misstating the law during closing arguments. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury on the applicable law regarding self-defense in the context of reckless crimes, and any potential errors were cured by the final instructions.

criminal law

The case concerned a boundary dispute between two adjacent ranch owners in Garfield County, Colorado, over 167 acres of mountainous land where a historic barbed wire fence did not match the legal descriptions in the parties' deeds due to a 1949 BLM resurvey. Beaver Creek Ranch sued Gordman Leverich to quiet title, asserting statutory acquiescence and adverse possession after the fence had enclosed the disputed parcel with the Youberg Ranch for decades, and sought damages from oil and gas lease payments on the land. Following a bench trial, the court awarded title to Beaver Creek based on adverse possession that began no later than 1984, along with damages and prejudgment interest. On appeal, the court affirmed the adverse possession ruling that vested title in Beaver Creek but reversed the prejudgment interest award, holding that Beaver Creek was not entitled to the royalties until the judgment quieted title.

property

Richard Palmer sued former NAS employees Chuck Diaz, Diane Herwitz, and Sandra Burrill for slander and defamation, alleging their statements to federal investigators about his control of the minority-owned company led to his indictment and guilty plea on fraud, money laundering, and forfeiture charges. The defendants countersued for abuse of process and outrageous conduct, asserting the lawsuit was brought in retaliation for their cooperation with the government investigation. After a jury trial, the court affirmed the verdicts and compensatory damages in favor of the defendants but reduced the exemplary damages awards to not exceed actual damages and reversed the attorney fees award as duplicative of amounts already included in the jury's economic damages calculation.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Shyanne Properties, LLC and defendants over real estate investments, where the plaintiff recorded lis pendens on properties and refused to release them, leading defendants to petition for their removal as spurious documents under C.R.C.P. 105.1 and Colorado spurious lien statutes. The trial court ruled the lis pendens were spurious and awarded defendants attorney fees and costs. On appeal, the court affirmed that a lis pendens can qualify as a spurious document under the statutes and that the trial court had jurisdiction to award fees because the petition was properly served under C.R.C.P. 5 in the pending action rather than requiring C.R.C.P. 4 personal service. However, it reversed the fee award as to amount, holding that an evidentiary hearing on reasonableness was required after the plaintiff requested one, and remanded for that hearing plus determination of appellate fees.

propertyprocedure

The case involved an adoptee, J.N.H., whose 1965 adoption was finalized before July 1, 1967, seeking direct access to his adoption records to identify his birth father after already locating his birth mother. The trial court denied the request and required use of a confidential intermediary under section 19-5-305(2)(a), C.R.S. 2008, but the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed that order. The court held that the statute permits adoptees in pre-July 1967 adoptions to access records and birth parent names without the confidentiality and intermediary requirements that apply to later adoptions. Its reasoning relied on plain-language statutory interpretation, the legislative history of anonymity provisions, and the statute's explicit exception for pre-1967 adoptions from anonymity rules.

family lawprocedure