May 19, 2013

Colorado State Judicial Branch Revises Several Probate Forms

This is Part 1 of 4 posts about new forms from State Judicial. Check back soon for more updates.

The Colorado State Judicial Branch issued 15 revised forms in July 2012 for probate proceedings, including instructions and forms regarding guardianships and conservatorships, as well as publication and notice forms. Practitioners should begin using the new forms immediately.

These forms were amended by the Colorado Supreme Court on June 29, 2012, and outlined as Rule Change 2012(11).

Most forms are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Microsoft Word formats; many are also available as Word and Excel templates. Download the new forms from State Judicial’s individual forms pages, or below.

Probate

  • JDF 714 – “Affidavit Regarding Due Diligence and Proof of Publication” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 716 – “Notice of Hearing By Publication” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 785 – “Final Order Accepting Guardianship/Conservatorship in Colorado From Sending State” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 807 – “Notice of Hearing to Respondent (Adult or Minor)” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 821 – “Affidavit of Acceptance of Appointment By Written Instrument as Guardian for Minor” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 823 – “Instructions for Appointment of Guardian – Minor” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 840 – “Instructions for Appointment of Guardian – Adult” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 844 – “Notice of Appointment of Emergency Guardian and Notice of Right to Hearing” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 860 – “Instructions for Appointment of Conservator – Minor” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 875 – “Instructions for Appointment of Conservator – Adult” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 882 – “Conservator’s Inventory with Financial Plan and Motion for Approval” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 887 – “Instructions to File a Petition to Terminate Conservatorship” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 945 – “Notice of Disallowance of Claims” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 949 – “Notice of Hearing to Interested Persons and Owners By Inheritance” (revised 7/12)
  • JDF 950 – “Notice of Hearing By Publication to Interested Persons and Owners By Inheritance” (revised 7/12)

For a complete list of probate forms from State Judicial, click here.

Service, Process, and Electronic Filing Rules Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

On July 2, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court released numerous updates to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and the Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure dealing with process, service of process, and the filing of pleadings. Amendments were made to the following rules:

  • CRCP Rule 4 – “Process”
  • CRCP Rule 5 – “Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers”
  • CRCP Rule 121, Section 1-26 – “Electronic Filing and Serving System”
  • CRCCCP Rule 304 – “Service of Process”
  • CRCCCP Rule 305.5 – “Electronic Filing and Serving”

These amendments were adopted on June 21 and are effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to these civil procedure rules, outlined as Rule Change 2012(10).

Death Penalty Post-Trial Procedures Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

On June 27, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court announced a change to Criminal Procedure Rule 32.2 – Death Penalty Post-Trial Procedures. Crim.P. 32.2(c)(1) is amended to read as follows:

Unitary Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal for the direct appeal and the notice of appeal for all post-conviction review shall be filed by unitary notice in the supreme court within 7 days after the trial court’s order on post-conviction review motions, or within 7 days after the expiration of the deadline for filing post-conviction review motions if none have been filed. The unitary notice of appeal need conform only to the requirements of sections (1), (2), (6) and (8) of C.A.R. 3(g).

These amendments were adopted on June 21 and are effective July 1.

Click here to review the red line changes to Crim.P. 32.2, outlined as Rule Change 2012(09).

“Rule of Seven” Comment Added to Four Colorado Procedure Rules

On June 27, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court announced four amendments to various Colorado procedure rules regarding the “rule of seven” for procedural time calculations. Colorado Civil Procedure Rules 6 and 306, Criminal Procedure Rule 45, and Colorado Appellate Rule 26 were all amended with the following Comment:

AFTER THE PARTICULAR EFFECTIVE DATE, TIME COMPUTATION IN MOST SITUATIONS IS INTENDED TO INCORPORATE THE RULE OF SEVEN. UNDER THE RULE OF SEVEN, A DAY IS A DAY, AND BECAUSE CALENDARS ARE DIVIDED INTO 7-DAY WEEK INTERVALS, GROUPINGS OF DAYS ARE IN 7-DAY OR MULTIPLES OF 7-DAY INTERVALS. GROUPINGS OF LESS THAN 7 DAYS HAVE BEEN LEFT AS THEY WERE BECAUSE SUCH SMALL NUMBERS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE UNDERLYING CONCEPT. DETAILS OF THE RULE OF SEVEN REFORM ARE SET FORTH IN AN ARTICLE BY RICHARD P. HOLME, 41 COLO. LAWYER, VOL. 1, P 33 (JANUARY 2012).

TIME COMPUTATION IS SOMETIMES “FORWARD,” MEANING STARTING THE COUNT AT A PARTICULAR STATED EVENT [SUCH AS DATE OF FILING] AND COUNTING FORWARD TO THE DEADLINE DATE. COUNTING “BACKWARD” MEANS COUNTING BACKWARD FROM THE EVENT TO REACH THE DEADLINE DATE [SUCH AS A STATED NUMBER OF DAYS BEING ALLOWED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL]. IN DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULE OF SEVEN TIME COMPUTATION/TIME INTERVAL AMENDMENTS HAVING A STATUTORY BASIS, SAID AMENDMENTS TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 1, 2012 AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER TIME INTERVALS ARE COUNTED FORWARD OR BACKWARD, BOTH THE TIME COMPUTATION START DATE AND DEADLINE DATE MUST BE AFTER JUNE 30, 2012. FURTHER, THE TIME COMPUTATION/TIME INTERVAL AMENDMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO MODIFY THE SETTINGS OF ANY DATES OR TIME INTERVALS SET BY AN ORDER OF A COURT ENTERED BEFORE JULY 1, 2012.

These amendments were adopted on June 21, 2012, and are effective July 1.

Click here to review the red line changes to these rules, outlined as Rule Change 2012(08).

Chief Justice Amends Court Compensation of Expert Witnesses and Professionals Conducting Mental Health Evaluations

In an effort to control expenditures of state funds in court cases, the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court has approved a new policy that applies to expert witnesses and mental health professionals conducting examinations or evaluations (with or without subsequent testimony) who are entitled to compensation paid by the Colorado Judicial Department.

Issued in June 2012, this new Chief Justice Directive, CJD 12-03, does not apply to other professionals that are appointed and compensated by the court as provided in other Chief Justice Directives, nor does it apply to employees and/or contractors paid by the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo or other government mental health agencies for work performed at their direction.

Certain types of evaluations are also excluded inasmuch as they are governed by other program-specific statutes, rules, or policies. If the Court finds that there is not an applicable statute, rule, directive, policy, or similar guidance that governs compensation for an evaluation permitted by statute, and that payment by the Judicial Department is appropriate, the Court will enter an order requiring the expert to comply with the fee and billing requirements and limitations set forth by CJD 12-03.

The Judicial Department may enter in to agreements to provide for evaluations or examinations when it is determined that said agreements are cost-effective and in the best interest of the Judicial Department.

This new Chief Justice Directive is applicable to all appointments made on or after July 1, 2012.

Chief Justice Directives 87-01 (Court compensation of experts in felony cases) and 93-03 (Compensation, mental condition examinations in criminal and civil cases) are repealed by CJD 12-03.

For all details about CJD 12-03, including Fees, Expenses, and Guidelines for Payment, click here.

Rejection List for E-Filed Documents Updated by the Chief Justice

Attachment A of Chief Justice Directive 11-01 was revised this week. CJD 11-01 concerns Statewide Electronic Filing Standards and Attachment A outlines the Rejection List for E-Filed Documents. Attachment A is the only portion of the CJD that was revised.

Attachment A was amended to add reason number 16 to the list of reasons to reject a document. Section 1-15 of Colorado Civil Procedure Rule 121 was amended by the Colorado Supreme Court in March (Rule Change 2012(03) to add a requirement that each motion filed must be accompanied by an order in editable format. The amendment to CJD 11-01 conforms Attachment A with that requirement.

The details are outlined in CJD 11-01 – “Directive Concerning Statewide Electronic Filing Standards”

Questions about this amendment can be directed to Carol Haller, Deputy State Court Administrator, Legal Counsel at (303) 837-3669 or carol.haller@judicial.state.co.us or Linda Bowers, Court Services Manager at (303) 837-3839 or linda.bowers@judicial.state.co.us.

Corrective Order Issued for New Procedural Time Calculation Rules that Become Effective in July

Back in 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court announced significant changes across the board for procedural time calculations. The changes conform the various court rules to the “rule of 7″ for procedural time periods, adopting multiples of a week. The rule changes were implemented in two phases: the contents of Rule Change 2011(18) were implemented on January 1, 2012, and the contents of Rule Change 2011(19) are set to become effective on July 1, 2012. This later date reflected the need for some rules changes to be approved and passed by the Colorado legislature.

On June 20, 2012, the Court released a Corrective Order to revise the procedural time calculations for some Colorado Rules of Procedure that become effective in July. Namely, time periods for filing certain documents with the court have been extended in the following rules:

  • Rule 103 and Rule 403 Garnishment (extension of certain deadlines from 7 to 14 days)
  • Rule 411 Appeals (extension of certain deadlines from 14 to 21 days)

The specific changes to the rules can be reviewed in the redlined document below.

Supreme Court Rule Change 2011(19) Corrective Order

UPDATED: Colorado Supreme Court Amends Several Rules of Judicial Discipline

Editor’s Note: On June 20, 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court announced that a different rule change will be categorized as Rule Change 2012(06). This rule change will now be categorized as 2012(07). Click here to review the redline changes (still labeled as 2012(06)) and click here to review a clean copy of the finalized Rules of Judicial Conduct (labeled as 2012(07)) .

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended several Rules of Judicial Discipline. Many changes were made to the rules, including some renumbering. Affected rules include:

  • Rule 4. Jurisdiction and Powers
  • Rule 5. Grounds for Discipline
  • Rule 18.5. Special Masters [formerly Rule 24]
  • Rule 21.5. Discovery
  • Rule 33. Record of Proceedings
  • Rule 33.5.  Disability Proceedings
  • Rule 36.5. Conviction of a Crime
  • Rule 37. Recommendation and Notice
  • Rule 40. Decision

These amendments were adopted on March 22, 2012 and are effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to the Rules of Judicial Discipline, outlined as Rule Change 2012(06).

Revised United States District Court Local Rules Appendices C, J, and K

The United States District Court of the District of Colorado has revised its Local Rules of Practice, which originally went into effect on December 1, 2011. Since then, revisions have been made to Appendix C, Appendix J, and Appendix K. The updated appendices can be reviewed below.

  • Appendix K – “Statement by Defendant in Advance of Plea of Guilty”

Criminal Procedure Rule 17(h) Revised for Failure to Obey Subpoena; Effective in July

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Rule 17(h) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure – Failure to Obey a Subpoena. The rule change comes after the Court requested comment last year. The new rule reads:

(h) Failure to obey subpoena.

(1) Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. Such contempt is indirect contempt within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 107. The trial court may issue a contempt citation under this subsection (1) whether or not it also issues a bench warrant under subsection (2) below.

(2) Trial witness—bench warrant.

(A) When it appears to the court that a person has failed without adequate excuse to obey a duly served subpoena commanding appearance at a trial, the court, upon request of the subpoenaing party, shall issue a bench warrant directing that any peace officer apprehend the person and produce the person in court immediately upon apprehension or, if the court is not then in session, as soon as court reconvenes. Such bench warrant shall expire upon the earliest of:

(i) submission of the case to the jury; or

(ii) cancellation or termination of the trial.

(B) Upon the person’s production in court, the court shall set bond.

This amendment was adopted on April 23, 2012 and is effective July 1, 2012.

Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 17(h), outlined as Rule Change 2012(05).

Change of Address, Bounce-Back Email, and Non-Admitted Appearance Processes Revised by United States District Court for Colorado

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has revised its rules regarding how the court will process attorney address changes, email bounce-backs, and appearances by non-admitted attorneys. It is important for attorneys to be aware of their obligations to the courts, especially regarding how to proceed when you change your physical address or email address or when you need to appear before the court when you are not admitted:

Change of Address:

Currently, clerk’s office staff compare the signature block of an attorney’s most recent filing with the attorney’s contact address information in CM/ECF and, when needed, will update the contact information to comport with the most recent provided address. The current process of checking for address changes for attorneys is very time consuming and impedes on the time needed to address the efficient docketing of case filings and court actions.

Compliance with local rules D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M and D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.3M regarding notice of change of address falls exclusively upon attorneys. Clerk’s office staff should not provide attorney support work regarding the checking for a need to update an address. Staff will, therefore, no longer automatically check for address update information and will rely on proper notice by the attorney as required by the Court’s local rules. This revised process will go into effect on April 9, 2012.

Bounce-back Emails:

In 2005, when the court went live on electronic filing, the clerk’s office began to monitor bounce-back emails related to electronic case entries posted by clerk’s office staff, chambers staff, or attorney counsel. Typically, bounce-back emails occur as a result of counsel’s failure to update their email addresses. The monitoring process was initially implemented as a check to the innovative use of electronic filing and service and notice of the same. Use of electronic filing is now the standard process for all attorneys to post and receive case information.

As directed by local rules D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.2D, D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M, D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.2D, and D.C.COLO.LCrR 49.3M, counsel are to inform the court of any change of email address within 5 days of the change. Whenever an attorney filer’s email address changes, the attorney is to electronically update her/his ECF electronic profile to activate the new email address. As long as an attorney is in good standing with the bar of the Court, it is the attorney’s responsibility to keep his/her email address(es) current regardless of place of employment, whether or not counsel of record in an open or closed case, or even if no longer practicing law.

It has been the experience of clerk’s office staff that bounce-back emails resulting from wrong email addresses occur in a variety of situations. Attempts to determine correct email addresses are very time consuming and often unproductive due to non-responsive attorneys. A number of opinions from district and appellate courts exist citing the responsibility of counsel to monitor the docket of the court for the need to address such matters as maintaining up-to-date contact information, including current email addresses. Therefore, effective April 9, 2012, the clerk’s office will no longer monitor bounce-back emails. Should chambers have a question about a specific attorney’s email address, clerk’s office staff will certainly assist with any effort to address the question.

Non-Admitted Appearing Attorneys:

In the past, when an attorney made an appearance pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1A or D.C.COLO.LCrR 44.1A, and the attorney was not admitted to practice in this court, clerk’s office staff would contact the attorney by phone, email, or letter informing her/him of the duty to seek admission or withdraw his/her appearance. An attorney may be contacted multiple times over a protracted period. Unfortunately, this time consuming process does not usually result in the attorney taking the requested action. When no action is taken by the attorney, the clerk’s office notifies chambers that the attorney has been unresponsive.

To streamline this procedure and focus the responsibility on the attorney’s obligation to comply with the local rules, the clerk’s office will begin using the following docket entry in place of the an attempt to gain compliance via direct contact:

“The Court construes that (name of attorney) has entered an appearance as an attorney in (cite the case number.) Pursuant to (D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1A or D.C.COLO.LCrR 44.1A), only members admitted to the bar of this court can enter an appearance as an attorney. The attorney records of the court do not reflect that (name of the attorney) is a member of the bar. Unless an application for admission to the bar is received within 20 days of the date this entry, further action may be taken by the court.”

Streamlining the procedure will eliminate letters, emails, and phone calls by clerk’s office staff and may further assist in reducing associated work performed by chambers staff. The docket entry will provide notice to appearing attorneys and chambers. This procedure will go into effect on April 9, 2012.

Colorado Supreme Court Makes Minor Change to Rule for Judicial Duty to Report Misconduct

The Colorado Supreme Court has amended Chapter 20 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 251.4 – Duty of Judge to Report Misconduct or Disability. The minor change updates a reference to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct. The updated rule now references RULE 2.15 instead of Canon 3(B)(3).

This amendment was adopted on April 12, 2012 and is effective immediately.

Click here to review the red line changes to Rule 251.4, outlined as Rule Change 2012(04).

Protected

2013-05-19 11:38:29