Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Board of County Commissions v. Park County Sportsmen's Ranch, LLP
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-10-27 · cited 5×
The case arose after plaintiffs obtained a large costs judgment against PCSR following denial of its application for water rights on a Park County ranch; PCSR's partners then formed JJWM, which acquired the promissory note secured by a deed of trust on the ranch, foreclosed, and transferred part of the property to Aurora, prompting plaintiffs' claims that the foreclosure was a fraudulent conveyance under CUFTA, part of a civil conspiracy, and that JJWM was liable as PCSR's successor, with Thornton also seeking to quiet title based on lack of foreclosure notice. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdicts for plaintiffs on all claims, reattaching their liens to the ranch and voiding the JJWM-Aurora deed. On appeal, the court reversed the fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy judgments for insufficient evidence that the individual defendants were not accommodation parties on the note, affirmed successor liability as to JJWM but reversed reattachment of liens for all plaintiffs except Thornton, and reversed the quiet-title ruling voiding Aurora's deed. It remanded for further proceedings on the relative priority of Thornton's surviving lien and Aurora's deed, holding that the foreclosure did not extinguish that lien due to lack of notice.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
In Re the Marriage of Poland
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-09-29 · cited 3×
This case concerns a post-dissolution dispute in which Robert Poland appealed a trial court order directing him to pay his former wife a share of his military temporary disability retired list (TDRL) pay under their 2005 separation agreement, which had divided his future "gross military retirement" benefits using the Hunt-Gaillo formula. The Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that federal law under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA) permits division only of "disposable retired pay" and expressly excludes amounts computed using the member's disability percentage when a service member is on TDRL. Although the parties' agreement attempted to divide total retirement pay and protect the wife's share against reductions from disability elections, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Mansell v. Mansell prevents enforcement of any provision that divides more than disposable retired pay. Because the record contained no evidence of how Poland's TDRL pay was calculated or his disability rating, the trial court was directed on remand to exclude the disability-based portion before applying the decree's formula.
family lawpropertyfederal power
Adams v. Corrections Corp. of America
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-09-15 · cited 60×
In Adams v. Corrections Corporation of America, a group of over 200 current and former inmates sued CCA for negligence after suffering injuries in a riot at the Crowley County Correctional Facility that they did not join. The plaintiffs, many of whom were indigent or incarcerated out of state, moved the trial court to order CCA to give each deponent an electronic copy of his deposition transcript so they could review and correct it under C.R.C.P. 30(e); the trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs sought interlocutory review. The Colorado Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that the question presented was not a controlling question of law under C.A.R. 4.2 and section 13-4-102.1. The court explained that even if the plaintiffs prevailed on the transcript-access issue, the ruling would not materially affect the outcome of their underlying negligence claims or substantially advance termination of the litigation, as required for interlocutory review of a discovery order.
proceduretorts & liability
People Ex Rel. Rd
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-07-07
This case involved a dependency and neglect proceeding in which the trial court terminated a mother's parent-child legal relationship with her child. The mother appealed the termination order, but her initial notice of appeal lacked her signature as required by Colorado Appellate Rule 3.4(d), and her amended notice was filed late. The Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the initial notice was ineffective and that the mother failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing of the compliant amended notice.
family lawprocedure
Dillabaugh v. Ellerton
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-06-23 · cited 14×
In this postjudgment collection case, plaintiff Gary Dillabaugh sought to garnish an $839,882 future retirement obligation owed by Sefton Resources, Inc. to its CEO, defendant John Ellerton, under an employment agreement. The trial court ruled the obligation exempt from garnishment under Colorado's section 13-54-102(1)(s) as property payable from a retirement plan. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the statutory exemption for retirement plans is not limited to ERISA-qualified or tax-qualified plans and that the obligation qualified based on its stated purpose for retirement at age sixty-five, its calculation from the employment agreement's retirement provisions, and its similarity to obligations for other executives. The decision rested on the plain meaning of the statute and the uncontested facts showing the obligation's retirement-related attributes.
propertyprocedure
Sifton v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2011-06-09 · cited 9×
This case involved a dispute under Colorado's Spurious Liens and Documents statute where plaintiff June Marie Sifton sought to have two deeds of trust on her property declared invalid due to alleged forgery and to recover attorney fees. The respondent, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, released the deeds of trust shortly before the scheduled show cause hearing, leading the trial court to dismiss the action without holding the hearing or awarding fees under the statute. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the statute requires the lien or document to still be in effect at the time of the hearing for the court to make a determination and award fees. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether attorney fees should be awarded under a separate statute for actions lacking substantial justification.
propertyprocedure