May 24, 2018

Archives for January 20, 2017

SB 17-005: Allowing School Employees to Carry Concealed Weapons

On January 11, 2017, Sen. Chris Holbert and Rep. Patrick Neville introduced SB 17-005, “Concerning Handgun Safety Training Courses for School Employees, and, in Connection Therewith, Permitting Certain School Employees to Carry Concealed Handguns in Public Schools.”

The bill allows a county sheriff to provide a handgun safety training course to any employee of any public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school who also possesses a permit to carry a concealed handgun. A sheriff who provides a handgun safety training course shall consult with the board of education of each school district in the sheriff’s county, and, as may be appropriate, with the state charter school institute, to establish the curriculum for the course. The sheriff and each school district board, and, as may be appropriate, the state charter school institute, shall ensure that the curriculum includes consideration of any existing emergency response framework.

A person who possesses a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun (permittee) who is employed by a school district, charter school, or institute charter school may carry a concealed handgun onto the grounds of any school or charter school of the district or of the institute charter school if:

  • The permittee has successfully completed a school employee handgun safety course provided by a county sheriff;
  • The local board of education of the school district (local board) or, in the case of an institute charter school, the state charter school institute, has approved the curriculum of the sheriff’s department that provided the handgun safety course;
  • The permittee has received permission from the local board or, in the case of an institute charter school, from the state charter school institute, to carry a concealed handgun onto school grounds; and
  • The permittee has notified the administration of the school, charter school, or institute charter school that he or she may be carrying a concealed handgun on school grounds.

Each local board and the state charter school institute may:

  • Establish a maximum number of employees who may carry a concealed handgun in each school, charter school, and institute charter school; and
  • Deny permission to carry a concealed handgun to any employee if granting permission to the employee would result in such a limit being exceeded.

The bill was introduced in the Senate and assigned to the State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee.

HB 17-1036: Permitting the Carrying of Concealed Handguns on Public School Grounds

On January 11, 2017, Reps. Patrick Neville & Kim Ransom and Sen. Tim Neville introduced HB 17-1036, “Concerning Permitting the Carrying of Concealed Handguns on Public School Grounds.”

With certain exceptions, current law limits the authority of a person who holds a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun by prohibiting permit holders from carrying a concealed handgun on public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school grounds. The bill removes this limitation.

The bill was introduced in the House and assigned to the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Probate Court Had Jurisdiction to Appoint Temporary Co-Guardians

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In the Interest of L.B. on Thursday, January 12, 2017.

Probate—Child—Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Guardianship—Home State.

L.B.’s mother died and her father, Berzins, hired Dusalijeva as L.B.’s nanny. Later, they developed a romantic relationship. Berzins had and L.B. has dual citizenship in the United States and Latvia. Berzins died in 2015 in Denver. He had two wills: a 2012 Will executed in Latvia, and a 2014 Will executed in Denver. The 2014 Will expressly revoked all prior wills and left the residuary estate in trust for the benefit of L.B. and Blumberg (Berzins’s other daughter) or Blumberg’s descendants.

In March, May, and July 2015, the court appointed Dusalijeva and Blumberg as temporary co-guardians, initially at their request. In April 2015, without informing the Denver Probate Court, Dusalijeva moved for sole guardianship of L.B. in Latvia. After a four-day hearing, the Denver probate court appointed Blumberg and a Latvian couple, the Carlins, as permanent co-guardians of L.B. in August 2015. Ultimately, the Latvian appellate court found that Dusalijeva and her attorney had attempted to deceive the Latvian orphan’s court by relying on the superseded 2012 Will and failing to inform the court of the 2014 Will, and it concluded that matters regarding L.B. should be determined by a U.S. court.

On appeal, Dusalijeva primarily contended that the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. First, she contended that the court lacked jurisdiction under C.R.S. § 15-14-204(5) and (1) on the three occasions it temporarily appointed her and Blumberg as co-guardians. Based on the Colorado Court of Appeals’ review of the record, the court had jurisdiction under C.R.S. § 15-14-204(5). The probate court also had jurisdiction under C.R.S. § 14-13-204(1) because L.B. had been “abandoned” within the meaning of the statute.

Dusalijeva next contended that the probate court lacked permanent subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to C.R.S. § 14-13-204(2). Subsection (2) is arguably inapplicable in this case because the court did not say that its temporary orders appointing co-guardians would become permanent. Instead, the court held a hearing in August 2015 to determine independently who should be L.B.’s permanent guardian. The court did not decide this issue because it found the probate court had jurisdiction under C.R.S. § 14-13-201.

Dusalijeva also appeared to contend that the probate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine permanent guardianship under C.R.S. § 14-13-201(1). The probate court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction because Colorado was found to be L.B.’s home state. Further, even if Latvia had adopted a provision in substantial conformity with C.R.S. § 14-13-201(1)(a), the Latvian courts declined to exercise jurisdiction, ruling that Colorado was a more appropriate forum.

The court also considered and rejected six other alleged errors by the probate court and declined to address several arguments that Dusalijeva raised for the first time in her reply brief.

The orders were affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Tractor is Motor Vehicle for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Purposes

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. on Thursday, January 12, 2017.

Insurance—Covered Motor Vehicle—Underinsured Motorist Provision—Farm Tractor.

Bunker was driving a farm tractor when he collided with Smith’s truck. The hay spears attached to the tractor pierced the truck and impaled Smith, leaving him severely injured. Bunker pleaded guilty to careless driving, and Smith settled his claim against Bunker for Bunker’s liability policy limits. Because this settlement did not fully compensate Smith for his injuries, he filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm). State Farm denied coverage on the basis that a farm tractor is not a motor vehicle. Smith sued and the district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the tractor was not a covered motor vehicle for purposes of the UIM coverage policy.

On appeal, Smith contended that his policy’s property damage coverage section definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” is included in the UIM coverage provision. The Colorado Court of Appeals declined to extend the “uninsured motor vehicle” definition found only in the property damage coverage provision beyond that provision.

Smith next contended that the plain and ordinary meaning of “motor vehicle” includes the tractor. The court determined that the plain and ordinary meaning is an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and one with rubber tires for use on highways. Applying this definition, the court found that the tractor had wheels and its own motor, was not operated on rails, and was designed for use on streets and highways. Therefore, it was a covered motor vehicle under Smith’s UIM coverage provision.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 1/19/2017

On Thursday, January 19, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 22 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/19/2017

On Thursday, January 19, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and no unpublished opinion.

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