January 20, 2018

Archives for April 2, 2014

Governor Hickenlooper Vetoes Bills Regarding Copayments for Rehabilitation; Agreements In Lieu of Tax Payments

On Friday, March 28, 2014, Governor Hickenlooper vetoed two bills. These are the first vetoed bills of the 2014 legislative session. The two vetoed bills are:

  • HB 14-1108 – Concerning Limits on Copayments Made By a Covered Person for Physical Rehabilitation Services, by Rep. Dianne Primavera and Sen. Lois Tochtrop. The bill would have prohibited insurance companies from charging copays for rehabilitation services that exceeded the copays charged for primary physician visits.
  • SB 14-089 – Concerning a Prohibition for the State to Enter Into an Agreement for a Payment in Lieu of Taxes, by Sen. Gail Schwartz and Rep. Randy Fischer. The bill, recommended by the Capital Development Committee, would have exempted the state from any requirement to make a payment in lieu of taxes for property that it owns or leases, and would have specified that neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions could agree to make payments in lieu of taxes.

For a list of Governor Hickenlooper’s legislative decisions, click here.

HB 14-1266: Adjusting Penalties for Certain Value-Based Crimes

On February 4, 2014, Rep. Beth McCann and Sen. Linda Newell introduced HB 14-1266 – Concerning the Penalties for Certain Value-Based Offenses. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Recently the penalties for theft changed based on the value of the loss. As introduced, the bill changes the penalties for criminal mischief, fraud by check, defrauding a secured creditor, and unauthorized use of a financial transaction device and computer crime. The changes create new threshold loss levels for a full range of penalties from a class 2 felony down to a petty offense or a low level misdemeanor.

On March 11, the Judiciary Committee amended the bill and referred it to the Appropriations Committee.

HB 14-1269: Expanding Nexus of Business Relationships for Sales Tax Collection Purposes

On February 4, 2014, Rep. Lois Court and Sen. Mike Johnston introduced HB 14-1269 – Concerning the Circumstances Under Which a Person who Sells Items Subject to Sales Tax Must Collect such Sales Tax on Behalf of the StateThis summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The state imposes a sales tax collection obligation on every retailer or vendor, and the terms “retailer” and “vendor” are defined to include every person doing business in this state and selling to the user or consumer, and not for resale. The state also imposes a use tax collection obligation on every person in this state for the privilege of storing, using, or consuming in the state any tangible personal property purchased at retail. By operation of law, the definition of the term “doing business in this state” establishes which retailers must collect sales and use tax on behalf of the state from its customers. What qualifies as “doing business in this state” is what is understood as “nexus” among sales tax experts.

The bill modifies and expands the state’s sales and use tax nexus provisions by:

  • Expanding the types of activities that will create nexus with the state if conducted by any person that already has a physical presence in this state, other than a common carrier acting in its capacity as such, pursuant to an agreement or arrangement with an out-of-state retailer;
  • Clarifying that the expanded nexus provisions create a rebuttable presumption that the specified activities create substantial nexus for the out-of-state retailer;
  • Requiring an out-of-state retailer to collect and remit sales and use taxes if that retailer contracts with the state for the sale of tangible personal property or taxable services; and
  • Limiting the effect of the expanded nexus provisions to sales and use tax by specifying that the nexus does not apply to franchise, income, or other taxes.

The bill is assigned to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee has held two sessions where testimony was taken and the committee discussed the bill. The bill is scheduled for “action only” on April 2 at 1:30 p.m.

HB 14-1270: Continuing the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act

On February 4, 2014, Rep. Steve Lebsock and Sen. Lois Tochtrop introduced HB 14-1270 – Concerning the Sunset Review of the Licensing of Pet Animal Facilities, and, in Connection Therewith, Continuing the Licensing Functions of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Making Substantive Changes to the Regulatory StatutesThis summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Sunset Process—House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee

An introduced, the bill continues the licensure of pet animal facilities by the commissioner of agriculture (commissioner) for 5 years, until 2019. It also:

  • Authorizes the commissioner to deny, revoke, or refuse to renew the license of any entity if any officer, principal owner, or other person in a position of control over the entity has been convicted of animal cruelty or animal fighting, and requires denial or revocation of a license after a second offense;
  • Directs the commissioner or the commissioner’s designees to report to law enforcement agencies and the bureau of animal protection any instance of suspected animal abuse that is discovered in the course of an investigation, and grants qualified immunity for a report made in good faith;
  • Allows the commissioner to specify, by rule, written disclosures that must be given concerning rabies vaccinations and the origin and medical history of a dog, cat, ferret, or bird;
  • Amends definitions related to small canine breeding operations to resolve potential conflicts;
  • Repeals certain existing exemptions for nonhuman primates; and
  • Increases the existing cap on license fees from $350 to $700.

On February 24 the Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee amended the bill and referred it to the Finance Committee. On March 13, the Finance Committee approved the bill and sent it to the Appropriations Committee. The bill is on the Appropriations Committee calendar for Wednesday, April 2 at 7:30 a.m.

HB 14-1271: Extending Civil Liability for Mental Health Providers with Duty to Warn in Order to Warn Specific Persons

On February 6, 2014, Rep. Jovan Melton and Sen. Linda Newell introduced HB 14-1271 – Concerning Extending a Mental Health Provider’s Duty to Warn to Include Specific Entities that, if Purposefully Damaged or Attacked as a Result of a Mental Health Patient’s Violent Behavior, Would Jeopardize Public Health and SafetyThis summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Current law grants immunity from liability to a mental health provider (provider) who has a duty to warn a specific person or persons when a patient has communicated to the provider a serious threat of imminent physical violence against that person or persons. The bill would extend that immunity and duty to warn to include persons or persons identifiable by their association with a specific location or entity.

On March 26 the bill cleared its final hurdle in the legislative and is now headed to the Governor’s desk for action.

HB 14-1273: Repealing and Reenacting Certain Statutory Provisions Regarding Human Trafficking

On February 6, 2014, Rep. Beth McCann and Sen. Linda Newell introduced HB 14-1273 – Concerning Human Trafficking. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

The bill repeals and reenacts, with amendments, existing provisions concerning human trafficking.

A person who knowingly sells, recruits, harbors, transports, transfers, isolates, induces, entices, provides, receives, or obtains by any means another person for the purpose of coercing the other person to perform labor or services commits human trafficking for involuntary servitude. Human trafficking of an adult for involuntary servitude is a class 3 felony. Human trafficking of a minor for involuntary servitude is a class 2 felony.

A person who knowingly sells, recruits, harbors, transports, transfers, isolates, induces, entices, provides, receives, or obtains by any means a person for the purpose of coercing the person to engage in commercial sexual activity commits human trafficking for sexual servitude. Human trafficking of an adult for sexual servitude is a class 3 felony. Human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude is a class 2 felony.

In any prosecution for human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude, it is not a defense that:

  • The minor consented to being sold, recruited, harbored, transported, transferred, isolated, induced, enticed, provided, received, obtained, or maintained by the defendant for the purpose of engaging in commercial sexual activity;
  • The minor consented to participating in commercial sexual activity; or
  • The defendant did not know the minor’s age or reasonably believed the minor to be 18 years of age or older, or that the minor or another person represented the minor to be 18 years of age or older.

Human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude is a “sex offense against a child” for the purposes of the statute of limitations. This means that there is no limit to the period of time within which criminal proceedings may be initiated against an offender.

The bill creates the Colorado human trafficking council (council) within the department of public safety (department). The bill establishes the membership of the council and sets forth the duties of the council.

In any criminal prosecution for a human trafficking offense or for any offense relating to child prostitution, evidence of specific instances of the victim’s or a witness’s prior or subsequent sexual conduct, or opinion evidence of the victim’s or a witness’s sexual conduct, or reputation evidence of the victim’s or a witness’s sexual conduct, or evidence that the victim or a witness has a history of false reporting of sexual assaults is to be offered at trial, may only by admitted under specific circumstances.

For a conviction for human trafficking for involuntary servitude or for human trafficking for sexual servitude, the court shall order restitution, if appropriate, even if the victim is unavailable to accept payment of restitution. If the victim is deceased or unavailable for 5 years after the date of the restitution order, the defendant shall pay the ordered restitution to the prostitution enforcement cash fund.

The bill makes conforming amendments.

On March 11, the Judiciary Committee amended the bill and referred it to the Appropriations Committee; the bill is scheduled to be heard by the Appropriations Committee on Friday, April 4 at 7:30 a.m.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 4/1/2014

On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and one unpublished opinion.

Clark v. Oakley

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/31/2014

On Monday, March 31, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and two unpublished opinions.

Requena v. Roberts

Baser v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.