July 30, 2015

Colorado Court of Appeals: ADA Not Defense to Termination of Parental Rights

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of C.Z. on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Dependency and Neglect—Termination of Parent–Child Legal Relationship—Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Weld County Department of Human Services (Department) filed a dependency and neglect petition after mother was unwilling to follow through with treatment to address her multiple mental health diagnoses. The Department also asserted father had been diagnosed with severe depression. The court granted the Department custody of the child.

The court then adjudicated the child dependent and neglected and approved a treatment plan for the parents. After receiving the psychological and parent–child interactional evaluations, the Department moved to terminate the parents’ parental rights, asserting that no appropriate treatment plan could be devised to address their unfitness. Following a contested hearing, the court terminated the parent–child legal relationship.

On appeal, mother and father argued that CRS § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I) conflicts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because it allows the court to terminate parental rights of disabled parents without requiring the Department to provide them the rehabilitative services that other parents receive. The Court first addressed the Department’s assertion that the parents’ contention should be summarily rejected because the ADA is not a defense to termination of parental rights. Title II of the ADA does not limit the court’s authority to terminate a disabled parent’s rights when the parent is unable to meet his or her child’s needs. However, it does apply to the provision of assessments, treatment, and other services that a department provides to parents through a dependency and neglect proceeding before a termination hearing. Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether CRS § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I) is preempted by the ADA.

The type of preemption at issue here was conflict preemption, which voids a state statute that conflicts with a valid federal law. A conflict is found when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility or when the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and full execution of the purposes and objectives of federal law.

CRS § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I) permits termination of parental rights of mentally impaired parents without requiring the Department to provide them treatment plans. However, the Court held this does not conflict with the ADA’s requirement that a public entity make reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. If rehabilitative services can be offered to address a parent’s mental impairment so that he or she can meet the child’s needs within a reasonable time, then termination is not authorized under CRS § 19-3-604(1)(b)(I). A finding that no treatment plan can be devised to address a parent’s unfitness caused by mental impairment is the equivalent of a determination that no reasonable accommodations can be made to account for the parent’s disability under the ADA.

In determining whether reasonable accommodations can be made to address the parent’s disability under the ADA, the court’s paramount concern is the child’s health and safety. The ADA does not protect an individual who poses a safety risk to others. The Court concluded that the trial court’s findings here satisfy the ADA requirement that no reasonable accommodations could be made to enable mother and father to participate in an appropriate treatment plan and rehabilitative services.

Father also argued the termination of his parental rights solely on the basis of his mental disability violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court disagreed. Parents who are unable to meet their children’s needs within a reasonable time, whether because of mental impairment or another statutorily enumerated reason, are not similarly situated to parents who have the ability to become fit within a reasonable time. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Reversal Required when Jury Instructed on Uncharged Felony Offense Rather than Charged Misdemeanor

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Riley on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Attempt to Influence a Public Servant—Tampering With Physical Evidence—Second-Degree Forgery—Jury Instructions—Constructive Amendment of Information—Jury Deliberations—Audio Recording.

The People charged defendant with third-degree assault and harassment for allegedly attacking his ex-wife in July 2006. After the charges were filed, defendant gave his attorney a receipt from a hotel in Kansas that purportedly showed that defendant was not in Colorado on the dates of the charged offenses. Because the receipt contained fraudulent information based on defendant’s alterations of it, the People charged defendant with attempt to influence a public servant, tampering with physical evidence, and second-degree forgery. He was convicted by a jury on all counts.

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on the uncharged offense of felony forgery rather than the charged offense of second-degree forgery (a misdemeanor). The trial court’s instruction constituted a constructive amendment of the information because it changed an essential element of the charged offense and allowed the jury to convict defendant of an uncharged crime. Further, second-degree forgery is not a lesser included offense of felony forgery. Because it is constitutionally prohibited to convict a defendant of a charge not contained in the information, defendant’s conviction for second-degree forgery was reversed.

Defendant also argued that because the trial court did not provide the jury with instructions defining the terms “attempt” and “official proceeding,” his respective convictions for attempt to influence a public servant and tampering with physical evidence must be reversed. There is no reference to the criminal definition of “attempt,” and adding such a definition would result in an absurd result. Further, although “official proceeding” is defined in the statute, any error was harmless because defendant failed to show that this error contributed to his conviction for tampering with physical evidence.

Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the jury during deliberations unfettered access to an audio recording between the prosecutor and defendant’s ex-wife about a conversation she had with defendant. When defendant’s ex-wife testified at trial, she denied everything she had initially told the police about the attack and all the statements she had made during the recorded interview with the prosecutor. Therefore, the audio recording of the interview was admitted as prior inconsistent statements, and the recording was played for the jury during her testimony. Although the trial court failed to exercise its discretion with respect to the jury’s access to the recording during deliberations, such failure did not substantially influence the verdict or affect the fairness of the trial such that reversal of defendant’s convictions was required.

The case was remanded for a new trial on the charge of second-degree forgery. The remaining convictions were affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Colorado Governmental Immunity Act Does Not Apply Retroactively

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Smokebrush Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Colorado Governmental Immunity Act—Gas Facility Exception—Public Building Exception.

The Smokebrush Foundation (Smokebrush) alleged that various contaminants had migrated from the City of Colorado Spring’s (City) property onto its property, causing damages. The district court denied the City’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the City’s immunity was waived under two statutory provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA): the gas facility exception and the public building exception. The district court also concluded that these waiver provisions applied retroactively to contamination that undisputedly occurred before the CGIA was enacted.

On appeal, the City argued that the trial court erred in finding that the CGIA applied retroactively. Nothing in the CGIA states that it is intended to operate retroactively. Therefore, the CGIA operates prospectively, effective July 1, 1972. Accordingly, to the extent that Smokebrush’s allegations were based on contamination stemming from the City’s coal gas operations in the 1920s and 1930s, the district court erred in concluding that the gas facility or public building exceptions to governmental immunity applied retroactively. The City is therefore immune from tort claims based on such contamination.

The City argued that the district court erred in concluding that the City was subject to suit under the gas facility and public building exceptions to governmental immunity for the injuries claimed by Smokebrush from alleged asbestos migration during the demolition activities on the property beginning in late 2012. The legislature waived governmental immunity for injuries resulting from “[t]he operation and maintenance of any public water facility, gas facility, sanitation facility, electrical facility, power facility, or swimming facility by such public entity.” Because the City’s property was not used in the collection, production, or distribution of natural gas and only housed administrative functions after the 1930s, the gas facility exception did not apply. Governmental immunity is also waived for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition of a public building. Although the City acknowledged that the property was a public building, this exception only applies to “constructing” and “maintaining” a public building. When the asbestos allegedly migrated to Smokebrush’s property, the property was in the process of being completely demolished. The dangerous condition definition applicable to the public building exception does not expressly recognize negligence claims stemming from demolition of a public facility. Therefore, the public building exception did not apply. The order denying the City’s motion to dismiss was reversed and the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the motion.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: No Error in Trial Court’s Calculation of Medicaid Lien

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in State of Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing v. S.P. on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Accident—Medicaid—Settlement—Statutory Lien—Calculation.

S.P. was injured in a snowboarding accident at a ski area. As a result of her injuries, she is a paraplegic and will require ongoing medical care and assistance for the rest of her life. She applied for Medicaid assistance and was accepted. Over the course of several years, Medicaid paid $142,779 for her accident-related medical care. S.P. sued the ski area, alleging negligence, and eventually settled the case for $1 million. Medicaid was entitled to a statutory lien against the settlement for repayment of the medical assistance it had provided. The settlement agreement, however, did not specify the portion of the settlement amount attributable to medical expenses, as opposed to other categories of damages. The Medicaid administration agency sued S.P. to enforce its lien.

On appeal, both parties argued that the trial court incorrectly calculated the amount S.P. was required to repay to Medicaid. Colorado has not enacted statutory, administrative or other procedures for apportioning third-party settlements for Medicaid lien purposes. The trial court applied a proportional allocation formula to determine what amount out of S.P.’s settlement funds should be considered compensation for past medical expenses. The trial court also relied on an objective indication of S.P.’s total past medical expenses that was supported by the record.

The Court of Appeals held that the decision to rely on the amount paid rather than the amount billed by Medicaid was not clearly erroneous, and that the trial court’s method in this case was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. The trial court also did not err in applying its formula to the gross settlement amount and properly took attorney fees into consideration in reducing the amount owed to Medicaid. The judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded to the trial court to release the funds held in its registry pursuant to the judgment.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Jury Determination that Defendant’s Negligence Did Not Cause Plaintiff’s Injuries Acceptable

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Vititoe v. Rocky Mountain Pavement Maintenance, Inc. on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Personal Injury—Challenges to Jurors and Jury Verdict and Jury Instructions.

Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle late at night. Shortly after making a U-turn, he collided with a lowboy trailer that was connected to a tractor driven by an employee of defendant. The collision occurred as the tractor was either stopped or beginning to proceed through an intersection controlled by a traffic signal that had turned green.

Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the truck driver. Plaintiff’s expert opined that defendant’s employee had worked more than the allowable fourteen-hour day and was likely tired and inattentive at the intersection and stopped for an unreasonable amount of time. Another expert for plaintiff testified that the taillights were positioned too low. The jury returned a special verdict form finding defendant was negligent but its negligence was not a cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Judgment was entered for defendant.

On appeal, plaintiff argued that some of the jurors made prejudicial statements during voir dire concerning motorcyclists’ helmet use, and that the trial court erred by refusing to canvass the jurors on that topic, give a limiting instruction, or declare a mistrial. The Court of Appeals disagreed. In Colorado, evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to wear a helmet is inadmissible to show negligence on the part of the plaintiff or to mitigate damages. If the jury learns a motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet, a limiting instruction may be required. When a prospective juror makes a potentially prejudicial statement during voir dire, the trial court may issue a curative instruction, canvass the jury, or declare a mistrial. Whether a statement is potentially prejudicial depends significantly on the facts and circumstances. Here, no juror expressed an opinion that plaintiff was negligent for not wearing a helmet and, in fact, there was no evidence allowed as to whether or not plaintiff wore a helmet.

Plaintiff argued that the evidence admitted at trial did not support the jury’s verdict. After reviewing the evidence presented, the Court found that there was competent evidence to support the verdict.

Plaintiff argued that the court erroneously instructed the jury by not omitting any reference to the doctrine of assumption of risk because the evidence did not support it. The Court found that testimony from a detective that plaintiff “accelerated toward something he saw” supported the instruction regarding assumption of risk.

Plaintiff argued that the court erred by instructing the jury that the law presumes a driver is negligent if the driver hits another vehicle in the rear. Plaintiff contended that the instruction should not have been given because this was not a rear-end collision, but a barrier crash. The Court found no authority to suggest that hitting the lowboy trailer, even if not moving forward, constituted a barrier crash as opposed to a type of rear-end collision. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Use of Stock Certificate as Exhibit Does Not Qualify as a Filing or Recording

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Battle North, LLC v. Sensible Housing Co. on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Spurious Documents—CRS §§ 38-35-201(3) and -204.

This case involves a dispute over ownership of real property in Eagle County (Pine Martin parcel). In 1998, Mortgage Investment Corporation (MIC) filed for judicial foreclosure on a deed of trust encumbering the Pine Martin parcel and the Piney Lumber parcel. Defendants included Pine Martin Mining Company (PMMC) and Piney Lumber Company (PLC). PMMC claimed ownership of the Pine Martin parcel and PLC claimed ownership of the Piney Lumber parcel. This essentially converted the foreclosure case to a quiet title action.

In 2000, PMMC and PLC moved for partial summary judgment and MIC filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. In 2004, the motions still pending, MIC assigned its interest in the matter to Ginn Battle Lender, LLC (Ginn). PMMC and PLC purported to transfer their interests in the parcels to respondent Sensible Housing Company (Sensible) by quitclaim deeds that Sensible recorded in the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder’s Office. Two of the deeds, one recorded in 2006 and one in 2008, were from PMMC to Sensible and concerned the Pine Martin parcel. These deeds are at issue in this case.

Pursuant to an approved stipulation for how to proceed to resolve the quiet title case, Sensible filed as an exhibit a purported 1915 Stock Certificate certifying that 1,251,000 shares of the capital stock of PMMC had been issued to Bouvier. Sensible’s principal, Tucker, claimed he had obtained those shares from Bouvier’s heir in 1996. On that authority, Tucker created and recorded the 2006 and 2008 quitclaim deeds.

In 2009, the district court granted Ginn’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Sensible’s motion. It found the 1915 Stock Certificate and related documents were incredible as a matter of law and therefore Sensible had no interest in either parcel. Sensible appealed, and a division of the Court affirmed summary judgment as to the Piney Lumber parcel but reversed as to the Pine Martin parcel, finding the 1915 Stock Certificate not “so incredible that no reasonable jury could believe it.”

In April 2012, Battle North, LLC (Battle North) filed a petition for an order to show cause pursuant to CRS § 38-35-204 and CRCP 105.1, alleging the 1915 Stock Certificate was a spurious document and requesting an order directing Sensible to show cause why it should not be declared invalid. Battle North amended the petition to request that the two quitclaim deeds also be declared invalid as spurious documents. Following a hearing, the district court made extensive findings, including that the 1915 Stock Certificate was created by Tucker and was a sham, and that both it and the two quitclaim deeds were spurious documents; the court therefore “released” the three documents. The court also awarded Battle Mountain attorney fees and costs pursuant to CRS § 38-35-204(2).

On appeal, Sensible argued that the priority rule required the district court to stay this case pending resolution of the quiet title action. The Court disagreed, holding that CRCP 105.1 allowed Battle North to bring this petition in a separate action and that staying the case would not further the policies behind the priority rule.

Sensible then argued that allowing Battle North to litigate this action contravened the mandate of the Court in an earlier appeal of the quiet title action where it remanded for further proceedings as to the Pine Martin parcel. The Court found nothing in that order precluding Battle North form proceeding as permitted by CRS § 38-35-204 and CRCP 105.1.

Sensible contended that its use of the 1915 Stock Certificate as an exhibit in the quiet title action did not entitle Battle North to relief under CRS § 38-35-204; filing a document as an exhibit in a civil case does not qualify as recording or filing a document within the meaning of the statute. The Court agreed. It held that “recorded or filed” as used in CRS § 38-35-204(1) is limited by its having to affect a person’s real or personal property. The filing of an exhibit in a civil case does not affect a person’s real property. Moreover, there would be no way to “release” such a document (the remedy in the statute). Thus, although the Court did not disturb the finding that the 1915 Stock Certificate was a sham, it was error to rule it was a spurious document under the statute, and that part of the order was reversed.

Sensible argued that the quitclaim deeds were not spurious because a quitclaim deed can convey only the title or interest that the grantor had, and the district court determined that the newly created PMMC had no title or interest to convey. Therefore, Battle North’s property could not have been affected by the recording of the quitclaim deeds. The Court found this argument to be without merit. Sensible argued that unless a document was a valid lien or encumbrance against real property, it cannot be a spurious document, because it cannot affect real property. However, in that case, the document would not be spurious.

Sensible argued that Battle North is not a “person whose real . . . property is affected by” the 1915 Stock Certificate and quitclaim deeds because it does not own the Pine Martin parcel. This argument was based on deficiencies in the treasurer’s deeds by which Battle North claimed title. The Court rejected those arguments on multiple grounds.

The Court also awarded Battle Mountain reasonable appellate attorney fees for defending the judgment as to the quitclaim deeds. The case was remanded to the district court for a determination of that amount.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: No Preservation Requirement for Sufficiency Claims Under Colorado Law

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. McCoy on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

CRS § 18-3-404—Medical Professionals—Actors.

The prosecution charged McCoy with unlawful sexual contact against two men, P.K. and G.M., arising out of separate incidents. According to each of the victims, McCoy told them that he worked in the television industry and invited them to work for them. During the victim’s interviews and training, held at McCoy’s house, McCoy touched them and asked them sexual questions. McCoy had previously told the victims that he was a physician. A jury convicted McCoy of four counts of unlawful sexual contact.

McCoy argued on appeal that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions under CRS § 18-3-404(1)(g), because the statute proscribes only conduct occurring in a physician–patient relationship and as part of a medical exam or medical treatment. Although McCoy raised this issue for the first time on appeal, Colorado law contains no preservation requirement for sufficiency claims. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, and found that the statute is clear and unambiguous and is not limited to medical professionals or those who claim to be medical professionals.

Here, the jury could have concluded that the victims submitted to examinations because McCoy led them to believe the examinations were part of a hiring process. The jury could also reasonably have concluded that McCoy examined the victims for his sexual gratification, and not for bona fide medical purposes, because both victims testified that McCoy touched their intimate parts while he examined them. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to sustain McCoy’s convictions under CRS § 18-3-404(1)(g). The Court further held that the statute’s plain terms are not unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Constructive Amendment to Charges Does Not Require Reversal Where No Plain Error

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Weeks on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Death of a Child—Other Acts Evidence—Jury Instruction—Indictment—Pattern of Conduct—Expert Medical Testimony—Substitution of Counsel.

Defendant appealed the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of first-degree murder and child abuse. Defendant’s convictions arose out the death of his 3-year-old daughter, A.M., who was declared brain dead after she was physically abused after urinating in her bed.

On appeal, defendant contended that reversal was required because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of other acts showing that defendant had physically punished his other daughters and family pets for urinating and/or vomiting in the house. This other-acts evidence was properly admitted to show intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident pursuant to CRE 404(b), and the incidents were sufficiently similar and numerous to be probative of an issue that was in dispute. Further, the evidence was logically relevant to disprove defendant’s claim that A.M.’s death was accidental.

Defendant also contended that his conviction and sentence for child abuse must be reversed or vacated because the court’s elemental jury instruction on child abuse effected a constructive amendment of the charge contained in the indictment. Defendant was charged in the indictment with all three categories of abuse. Varying slightly from the text of CRS § 18-6-401(1)(a), however, the indictment did not listmalnourishment and lack of proper medical care as the effects of defendant’s continued pattern of conduct against A.M. Moreover, the instruction included the two statutory effects that had been omitted from the indictment. Therefore, the instruction constructively amended the indictment. However, because defendant did not object to the instructions in the trial court, reversal was not warranted.

Defendant contended there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between defendant’s pattern of conduct and A.M.’s death to support his conviction. The last phrase of CRS § 18-6-401(1)(a) (“ultimately results in the death of a child or serious bodily injury to a child”) applies only to the last enumerated pattern of abuse (“an accumulation of injuries”). The other enumerated patterns of abuse do not require a showing that they resulted in death or serious bodily injury. Therefore, it was sufficient for the prosecution to show that defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct that resulted in mistreatment and cruel punishment of A.M., which ultimately resulted in A.M.’s death.

Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in permitting expert medical testimony on an ultimate issue to be determined by the jury. It was not an abuse of discretion to allow four medical experts to testify that A.M.’s injuries were not accidental. These experts did not give an opinion regarding whether defendant inflicted A.M.’s injuries or whether those injuries fit the legal definition of child abuse.

Defendant argued that the court deprived him of his right to conflict-free counsel, to present a defense, and to testify when it denied his midtrial request for a substitution of counsel. An actual conflict does not arise when trial counsel pursues a strategy that would impede a defendant’s right to testify, even over the defendant’s protest. Any alleged conflict did not deprive defendant of the right to testify and call witnesses. Consequently, the trial court did not error in denying defendant’s request for new counsel. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Picture of Accused in Photo Lineup Must Match Victim’s Initial Description

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Singley on Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Due Process—Out-of-Court Identification—Photo Lineup—Jury Instructions—Witness Credibility—Subpoena—Testimony—Cumulative.

The victim, J.A.C., was commuting home from work when two men, both carrying handguns, confronted him. When J.A.C. shouted for help, one of the men opened fire, shooting him three times, fracturing his pelvic bone, and causing permanent scarring. Singling and another man were arrested later that evening after robbing another woman. J.A.C. identified Singley as the shooter in a photo lineup. A jury found Singley guilty of attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault, attempted aggravated, robbery, and felony menacing.

On appeal, Singley contended that the trial court violated his right to due process and a fair trial when it declined to suppress the allegedly impermissibly suggestive and unreliable out-of-court identification, as well as the subsequent in-court identification. Immediately after the shooting, J.A.C. told officers that the shooter was in his 20s with a medium-length Afro. Several days later, the police presented J.A.C. with a photographic lineup built around Singley, which showed six bald men, all of whom appear to be of the same general age as Singley, who was 46. Because the picture of Singley did not match the initial description given by the witness, the trial court erred when it found that the lineup was not impermissibly suggestive. Under the totality of the circumstances, including J.A.C.’s view of the witness at the crime scene and only taking forty-five seconds to identify Singley in the photo lineup, J.A.C.’s identifications of Singley were nonetheless reliable.

Singley contended that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to give four proposed jury instructions on the reliability of eyewitness identification testimony. The court gave the jury a pattern witness credibility instruction, accurately informing it of the applicable law. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to give Singley’s four additional instructions.

Singley contended that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to present a complete defense when it quashed his subpoena of the Aurora police chief. Specifically, he asserted that the court improperly precluded the police chief’s testimony regarding his assistance in helping J.A.C. obtain a U-Visa, which allowed him to reside and work legally in the United States. Singley cross-examined J.A.C. regarding receipt of this U-Visa in exchange for his cooperation in the investigation to establish his motive for testifying and bias. Singley’s counsel also questioned the officer who helped J.A.C. with the U-Visa application. Therefore, the testimony of the Aurora police chief was cumulative and irrelevant, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it quashed the subpoena. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 6/18/2015

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, June 11, 2015

On Thursday, June 11, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 32 unpublished opinions.

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

Colorado Court of Appeals: Retroactive Tax Assessment Based on Underreporting of Value Affirmed

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P. v. Montezuma County Board of Commissioners on Thursday, June 4, 2015.

Property Tax Assessment—Oil and Gas—Retroactive Application—Transportation Deduction.

In April 2008, Kinder Morgan CO2 Company submitted six operator statements, one for each tax district, detailing its production in Montezuma County for 2007. The operator statements for 2007 showed a decrease in valuation of carbon dioxide from the previous tax year. A Montezuma County assessor audited the statements and determined that Kinder Morgan had underreported the selling price of oil and gas produced, because it had applied the incorrect method of calculating the transportation deduction. The audit resulted in an increased assessment. Kinder Morgan thereafter appealed the order issued by the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) upholding the Montezuma County assessor’s collection of additional oil and gas leasehold taxes for the 2007 tax year.

On appeal, Kinder Morgan contended that the BAA erred in concluding that the Assessor’s retroactive increase in value was authorized under the property tax code. HB 90-1018 amended CRS § 39-10-107(1) to permit retroactive assessment of property taxes on the value of oil and gas leaseholds omitted due to underreporting of the selling price of oil and gas or the quantity sold therefrom. Therefore, the BAA’s ruling was affirmed as to the retroactive assessment.

Kinder Morgan also contended that the BAA erred in determining that Kinder Morgan and the Cortez Pipeline Company were related parties for purposes of calculating the transportation deduction. There was sufficient evidence in the record that Kinder Morgan and Cortez Pipeline were partners and a majority of Cortez Pipeline’s income was earned from the owners of the Cortez Pipeline, one of which was Kinder Morgan. Accordingly, the BAA’s ruling regarding the transportation deduction was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.