John R. Webb

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Colorado Court of Appeals case arose from a dependency and neglect proceeding involving child L.B., whose parents had entered no-fault admissions after reports of domestic violence and physical abuse concerns; the trial court had allocated sole physical custody and decision-making responsibility jointly to the father and his parents following a permanency planning hearing. The mother appealed, primarily arguing that her court-appointed trial counsel provided ineffective assistance warranting remand. The court held that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are available only in proceedings that could result in termination of parental rights, not in custody allocations within dependency and neglect cases, and therefore declined to reach the merits of that claim. It further concluded that the custody order was supported by evidence of the child's special needs, the father's better support system and grasp of those needs, and the infeasibility of shared parenting, all evaluated under the child's best interests. The judgment allocating custody was affirmed.

family law

This case involved a biological father appealing the denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment terminating his parental rights in an expedited relinquishment proceeding under Colorado statutes. The mother had falsely represented to the court and adoption agency that she did not know the father's identity, resulting in notice by publication rather than actual notice, after which the child was adopted. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that the judgment was void because the mother's fraud deprived the father of due process by denying him notice and an opportunity to contest the termination. The court further held that neither the ninety-day statutory deadline nor the six-month deadline under C.R.C.P. 60(b) barred relief from the void judgment. It reversed the denial, vacated the termination judgment as to the father, and remanded for further proceedings on paternity and relinquishment.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a conservatorship established for Matthew D. Keenan, a protected person with a brain injury, after a large medical negligence settlement; Keenan sought to terminate the conservatorship based on improved cognition and, alternatively, to replace Colorado State Bank and Trust (CSBT) as conservator due to conflicts. CSBT opposed these efforts, and the trial court addressed whether CSBT could recover its fees and costs from Keenan's assets. The Colorado Court of Appeals held that a conservator may be compensated from the protected person's assets under common law and C.R.S. section 15-14-417(3) if it acts reasonably and in good faith when opposing termination or substitution, and the record supported such a finding for CSBT's opposition. However, the court vacated the specific award of attorney fees and costs, remanding for additional findings on the source of certain payments, reasonableness of fees, and equitable considerations before any final distribution from the conservatorship or related trusts.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Erik Deane Rabes, convicted by a jury of sexual assault on a child, sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust, two felony counts of sexual exploitation of a child, and one misdemeanor count of sexual exploitation of a child, based on images recovered from his home via a search warrant triggered by an America Online tip about child pornography uploads. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling the affidavit sufficient despite not attaching the images. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions and most sentences but vacated the 24-month misdemeanor sentence as exceeding the statutory maximum of 18 months, remanding solely for resentencing on that count. The core reasoning was that the affidavit, including descriptions of the images and police corroboration, provided a substantial basis for the magistrate's probable cause determination, with sentences upheld as non-multiplicitous where based on distinct acts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from claims by subdivision lot owners and their HOA against the developer, his company, neighboring lot owners, and a conservation easement holder over access rights to open space in a Weld County PUD, including quiet title to an alleged path easement, fraud from misrepresentations about access and trail construction, and breach of contract for unbuilt improvements. After a bench trial the court ruled that plaintiffs lacked superior title to any easement, awarded only nominal fraud damages, granted breach damages totaling over $80,000 against the developer entities, and awarded costs to the conservation holder. On appeal the court held that an amended PUD plat created an express path easement benefiting most plaintiffs that was not barred by the prior conservation deed and was superior to the current owners' title, reversed the fraud judgment and the breach judgment against the individual developer, affirmed the remaining breach award against the company only, and remanded for further proceedings on certain plaintiffs' claims.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this construction defect case, plaintiffs purchased a new home from defendant New Vista Homes II, LLC, whose manager Reeves selected a slab-on-grade basement floor despite geotechnical reports recommending structural floors due to expansive soils on the lot; after the floor moved and damaged the home, plaintiffs sued under CDARA for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, CCPA violations, and breach of implied warranty. The trial court directed a verdict for Reeves, the jury awarded plaintiffs over $540,000 against New Vista, and the court partially denied prejudgment interest on repair costs. On appeal, the court reversed the directed verdict for Reeves on the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, reversed the CCPA judgment against New Vista, and remanded for retrial on those issues while affirming the remaining rulings and damages. The decisions rested on de novo review of the evidence showing Reeves disregarded engineer recommendations and failed disclosure duties, the sufficiency of proof for other claims under CDARA standards, and the prospective nature of repair damages for interest purposes.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from an automobile accident in which defendant Brassfield admitted liability but contested causation and damages for plaintiff Maloney's claimed injuries. The trial court imposed a seven-day limit on the jury trial, split the time equally between the parties, tracked time with a clock, and denied Maloney's repeated requests for additional time to present his witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the defense verdict, holding that the time limits did not constitute an abuse of discretion or violate due process on the facts presented, that any error in allowing preservation depositions was harmless, and that admission of a surveillance video was within the trial court's discretion.

proceduretorts & liability

In People v. Trujillo, the defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated incest and sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, contending that the trial court erred by admitting the sixteen-year-old victim's hearsay statements under section 18-25-129, C.R.S. 2009. The court examined the statute's text, which creates a hearsay exception for statements by child victims of unlawful sexual offenses or incest, and determined that the age requirement of less than fifteen years at the time of the offense applies only to incest victims under section 18-6-301. Because the charged offenses were not subject to that age limit, the court held that the statements were properly admitted even though the victim was sixteen. The judgment of conviction was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this construction dispute, Weize Company, LLC, as plumbing subcontractor, and intervenor Martz Supply Company sued general contractor Colorado Regional Construction, Inc. for breach of contract, mechanics' lien foreclosure, and violations of the trust fund statute after CRC failed to pay for completed work and hired a replacement subcontractor. Following a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the lien foreclosure claim for failure to record a lis pendens but awarded damages on the contract and statutory claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions on standing, discovery sanctions, illegality defenses, lien requirements, and damages awards, while reinstating 12% prejudgment interest on treble damages under the trust fund statute and remanding for attorney fees proceedings.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved employee-plaintiffs who sued their former employer, Airgas, and several supervisors for illnesses allegedly caused by mold exposure in the workplace, along with related loss-of-consortium claims by spouses. The trial court converted Airgas's partial motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under C.R.C.P. 56 based on the exclusivity provision of Colorado's Workers' Compensation Act, denied the plaintiffs' C.R.C.P. 56(f) request for additional discovery via affidavit, and simultaneously entered summary judgment without further opportunity for the plaintiffs to oppose on the merits. The Court of Appeals held that a trial court may collapse denial of 56(f) relief into entry of summary judgment but that such action is reviewed for abuse of discretion. On these facts, the court found no abuse because the plaintiffs did not dispute the employment relationship or injury nexus, the affidavit lacked factual support for claims that workers' compensation rights had been compromised, and the relevant information was within the plaintiffs' possession. The summary judgment was affirmed.

procedurelabor & employment

The case concerned a dispute in rural Boulder County where residents Anita Moss and Robert Westby challenged the Colorado Division of Wildlife's issuance of firearm hunting permits in the Sugar Loaf Mountain area, citing a county resolution under C.R.S. § 30-15-302 that restricts firearm discharge near homes and roads for safety reasons. The plaintiffs sought declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief to bar such hunting, arguing the resolution effectively prohibited it as a matter of law. The trial court dismissed the claims against the Division for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies by petitioning the agency first, and it also dismissed the claims against the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that exhaustion was required because the claims involved factual issues about hunting dangers that could benefit from agency review, even though the specific exhaustion question became moot after the plaintiffs later petitioned the Division. A concurrence emphasized deciding the procedural issue without reaching the merits of the underlying statutory interpretation.

gunsprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the Upper Platte and Beaver Canal Company, which held easements for a ditch and maintenance access, and the City of Fort Morgan and a related improvement district, which owned the underlying property. After a developer graded and paved a street that altered the ditch banks, the Company sued the City for declaratory, injunctive, and restorative relief to protect its easement rights. The trial court denied the City's motion to dismiss under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), and the Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal. The court held that the CGIA did not bar the claims because they arose from property rights in an easement and sought equitable remedies rather than compensatory damages for a tort, even though the facts could support a trespass claim. The decision turned on the source of the duty and the nature of the relief requested, distinguishing this from typical tort actions covered by governmental immunity.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved multiple plaintiffs who purchased Peaberry Coffee franchises and sued the parent company, its franchising subsidiary, officers, and Perkins Coie (franchising counsel) over claims including fraudulent nondisclosure of the parent company's historic losses, negligent misrepresentation, alter ego liability, and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, with the subsidiary counterclaiming for unpaid royalties. The trial court struck jury demands, bifurcated the trial, and after a bench trial dismissed all claims while awarding damages on the counterclaims. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal of the fraudulent nondisclosure claims to the extent they concerned nondisclosure of historic losses, holding that integration and nonreliance clauses in the franchise documents did not bar reliance on such nondisclosures, and also vacated the counterclaim judgment and aiding-and-abetting claims against Perkins Coie; it remanded for further findings on those claims due to inconsistencies in the trial court's rulings but affirmed the judgment and pretrial orders in all other respects.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a subcontract for installing a sprinkler system in a building owned by Regency Realty Investors, where the general contractor Williams assigned its rights under the contract, including a prevailing-party attorney fees clause, to Regency after construction defects led to litigation against subcontractor Cleary Fire Protection. The trial court upheld the assignment and found Regency the prevailing party entitled to fees, but the appeals court addressed whether the fees claim was assignable under Colorado law. The court held that the assignment was valid because the claim survived and did not involve personal services or trust obligations, allowing Regency to enforce the fees provision as to Williams' breach-of-contract claims. However, it ruled that Regency could not recover fees incurred solely in prosecuting its own third-party beneficiary claims or separate representation, and remanded for specific findings to apportion recoverable fees that were inextricably intertwined with the assigned claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure