August 22, 2017

Discovering Discovery: Building Your Case, Deposition Tips, Expert Witnesses, and More

“Reduced to its essence, discovery is the process of identifying, collecting, producing and/or receiving relevant, nonprivileged materials in connection with pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. With the advent of notice pleading, civil discovery provides access to the relevant information that litigants and their counsel require to make informed decisions about the merits of their case and the potential for settlement.” -Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Discovery is a crucial component of every litigation case. In the last 10 years, civil litigation has changed significantly. The proliferation of electronic data and new rules on both the state and federal level create increasingly difficult challenges for preserving, managing, and producing electronically stored information. Conducting discovery outside Colorado has become mainstream as civil litigation has become more national—even global.

This Friday, CBA-CLE will debut the newest title in our litigation library, Discovery in Colorado, at a full-day program, “Discovering Discovery.” Discovery in Colorado is a practical guide to discovery that brings to life the application of the Colorado and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the discovery process. Discovery in Colorado was written by a variety of different practitioners, overseen by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang and Natalie Hanlon Leh, Esq. Attorneys and judges with backgrounds in private, in-house, and government practice authored individual chapters.

Learn different approaches to discovery and hear distinct perspectives from some of the most experienced trial attorneys and judges in Colorado. Each class attendee receives Discovery in Colorado, 1st Edition, as course materials. Explore the ever-changing state of discovery through this valuable course and companion book. Register using the links below, or call (303) 860-0608.

 

CLELogo

CLE Program: Discovering Discovery

This CLE presentation will occur on Friday, July 28, 2017, at the CLE Large Classroom (1900 Grant St., 3rd Floor) from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Register for the live program here and the webcast here. You may also call (303) 860-0608 to register.

Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here — Video OnDemandMP3 Audio

Colorado Court of Appeals: Laches is Available as Defense to Long-Overdue Maintenance Award

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Marriage of Kann on Thursday, July 13, 2017.

Post-Dissolution of Marriage—Laches as a Defense to Collection of Spousal Maintenance Arrearages and Interest—Implied Waiver and Estoppel.

A decree of dissolution of marriage between husband and wife was entered in 1989. Husband agreed to pay wife lifetime maintenance of no less than $1,200 per month. In the event of breach, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees. For the next 26 years, husband never paid maintenance and wife never asked him to do so.

In 2015, wife retained counsel and sought entry of judgment for $520,636.32—$289,200 in unpaid maintenance and $231,436.32 in interest. She also requested a maintenance modification if the court did not award her the full judgment. Husband raised the affirmative defenses of waiver, estoppel, and laches. He also requested that the court terminate his maintenance obligation if it awarded wife the full judgment. The trial court (1) concluded that husband was required to pay maintenance under the decree; (2) held that Colorado law does not recognize the laches defense; (3) found that husband had failed to meet his burden of proof on the waiver and estoppel defenses; and (4) enforced the full judgment against him. The court also decreased the maintenance going forward to $800 per month and awarded wife attorney fees as the prevailing party under the separation agreement.

On appeal, husband argued that he should have been able to raise laches as a defense. While a novel issue in Colorado, courts have addressed the issue as to child support and child support combined with maintenance. Based on these cases, the court of appeals concluded that laches is available as an affirmative defense when a party seeks maintenance arrearages as well as the interest on those arrearages. The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider the full scope of the laches defense on the existing record.

Husband also challenged the rejection of his implied waiver and estoppel defenses. The record supports the trial court’s rejection of husband’s waiver argument. As to estoppel, husband asserted that he proved all four elements. The trial court rejected this defense, finding that (1) husband understood his obligation to pay maintenance; (2) wife never told him that he did not have to pay; and (3) husband did not detrimentally rely on wife’s assertion that she would not collect maintenance. The court found no basis on which to disturb the trial court’s rejection of the estoppel defense.

Husband further argued that it was error to modify rather than terminate his maintenance obligation. The court could not resolve this issue because the propriety of the trial court’s order will depend whether it awards the wife none, part, or all of her request for maintenance arrearages plus interest.

The portions of the trial court’s order rejecting husband’s laches defense, awarding attorney fees to wife as the prevailing party, and modifying husband’s maintenance obligation were reversed. The case was remanded for the court to consider whether laches bars wife’s entitlement to maintenance interest or arrearages and, based on this determination, to then reconsider the maintenance and attorney fee awards as well as wife’s claim for appellate attorney fees. In all other respects the order was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Adoption Instruction Forms, Change of Name Instructions Amended in July

The Colorado State Judicial Branch released five JDF forms with a July 2017 revision date. The forms amended in July are four instruction forms in the adoption category and one instruction form for a change of name for a minor. These forms are available in PDF format here or in Word format on the State Judicial website. Additionally, one form was amended in June and several were amended in May. They are also available here.

ADOPTION

  • JDF 495 – “Instructions for Second Parent Adoption (Without Civil Union)” (Revised 7/17)
  • JDF 497 – “Instructions for Validation of Foreign Adoption” (Revised 5/17)
  • JDF 498 – “Instructions for Kinship Adoption” (Revised 7/17)
  • JDF 499 – “Instructions for Custodial Adoption” (Revised 7/17)
  • JDF 500 – “Instructions for Stepparent Adoption” (Revised 7/17)

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

  • JDF 1413I – “Instructions for Allocation of Parental Responsibilities” (Revised 6/17)

GENERAL/MISCELLANEOUS

  • JDF 76 – “General Motion” (Revised 5/17)
  • JDF 88 – “Notice of Change of Address or New Name” (Revised 5/17)
  • JDF 97 – “Notice to Quit” (Revised 5/17)

NAME CHANGE

  • JDF 420 – “Instructions for Filing for a Change of Name (Minor)” (Revised 7/17)
  • JDF 424 – “Request to Publish Notice to Non-custodial Parent of Change of Minor’s Name and Publication Order” (Revised 5/17)
  • JDF 425 – “Notice to Non-custodial Parent by Publication” (Revised 5/17)

For all of State Judicial’s JDF forms, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Obvious Instructional Error Did Not Fundamentally Undermine Defendant’s Rights

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Hoggard on Thursday, June 29, 2017.

Custody—Child and Family Investigator—Second Degree Forgery—Attempt to Influence a Public Servant—Invited Error—Waiver—Constructive Amendment—Lesser Included Offense—Jury Instructions—Mens Rea.

During a child custody dispute, Hoggard forwarded to the court-appointed child and family investigator a chain of emails between her and her ex-husband. Hoggard allegedly falsified that email chain by adding five sentences that made it appear that her ex-husband had threatened her. As a result of that alleged falsification, Hoggard was convicted of second degree forgery and attempt to influence a public servant.

As an initial matter, the People argued that the doctrines of invited error and waiver preclude appellate review of Hoggard’s instructional error claims. Although Hoggard’s counsel approved the disputed jury instructions, it was an oversight, not a strategy, and therefore not invited error. Further, the failure to object to the jury instructions was not a waiver under the circumstances of this case.

Hoggard contended on appeal that the trial court constructively amended the second degree forgery charge by instructing the jury on the uncharged and more serious offense of felony forgery. Although the trial court’s forgery instruction was erroneous, instructing the jury on felony forgery was not a constructive amendment because Hoggard was both charged with and convicted of second degree forgery, a lesser included offense of felony forgery. Further, there is no reasonable likelihood that the instructional error affected the outcome of the trial.

Hoggard next argued that her conviction for attempt to influence a public servant must be reversed because the trial court did not instruct the jury on the required mens rea for each element of the offense, thereby violating her constitutional due process rights. Although the trial court’s instruction on the charge tracked the statute, it did not expressly require the jury to find that Hoggard acted with intent as to the third and fourth elements of the crime: that she intended to attempt to influence a public servant and that she intended to do so by means of deceit. Nor did the instruction set off the mens rea requirement as a separate element. Accordingly, the trial court’s instruction on attempt to influence a public servant was erroneous and the error was obvious at the time of trial. However, because there was no reasonable probability that the trial court’s instructional error contributed to Hoggard’s conviction, it was therefore not plain error.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Post-Decree Modifications of Parental Responsibilities — Best Interests, Endangerment, and More

Sometimes, after a decree of dissolution is entered, parents seek to modify their allocation of parental responsibilities. The standard for modification of decision-making is found in C.R.S. § 14-10-129(2)(a) through (d). Subsection (a) allows for modification when the parties agree, but in practice this rarely or never happens. Subsection (b) allows modification when the child has been integrated into the family of the moving party with the consent of the other party — this, too, rarely happens. Subsection (c) addresses relocation and lists specific criteria for modification. The “meat” of the statute, however, is in subsection (d).

Subsection (d) allows modification of decision-making when “The child’s present environment endangers the child’s physical health or significantly impairs the child’s emotional development and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by the advantage of a change to the child.” Many cases have interpreted “endangerment” as it relates to the modification of decision-making; it is where attorneys get creative with their arguments. Typically, though, “endangerment” is when the parent fails to make decisions or when the parents cannot agree on even the most minor of decisions and it harms the child.

The standard to modify parenting time is the best interest of the child standard, which is slightly less onerous to meet than the endangerment standard. Learn more about the interplay of the two standards and practical applications of the standards in case law from Marie Moses, a partner at Lass Moses Ramp, LLP. Ms. Moses presented a program, “Mastering Post-Decree Modification Standards: Best Interests Versus Endangerment,” which is available here:

Ms. Moses discusses the difference between the best interests and the endangerment standards, and how courts apply the two in practical situations.

The materials and homestudy are available for purchase here.

CJD 16-02 Regarding Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel Amended by Colorado Supreme Court

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced amendments to CJD 16-02, “Court Appointments Through the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel.” The changes include minor additions and changes to various sections, as well as:

  • Giving ORPC the authority to select attorneys for specific cases upon notice to the court;
  • Prohibiting the same attorney from representing multiple parents in the same case;
  • Clarifying the appellate appointment policy;
  • Removing billing policies from the CJD that were contained in the ORPC billing policies;
  • Allowing Judges and Magistrates to appoint RPC prior to the filing of a petition for good cause; and
  • Clarifying appointment protocols.

The changes to CJD 16-02 were adopted June 13, 2017, and are effective July 1, 2017. For the full text of CJD 16-02, click here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.

Bills Signed Adding Water Right for Industrial Hemp, Amending Collections of Delinquent Taxes on Mobile Homes, Changing Election Laws, and More Signed

Though the legislative session is over, the governor continues to sign bills. He signed two bills on Friday, May 19; three bills on Saturday, May 20; three bills on Sunday, May 21; six bills on Monday, May 22; six bills on Tuesday, May 23; four bills on Wednesday, May 24; 28 bills on Thursday, May 25; one bill on Friday, May 26; and one bill on Tuesday, May 30. To date, the governor has signed 285 bills and vetoed one bill this legislative session. The bills signed since May 19 are summarized here.

Friday, May 19, 2017

  • HB 17-1354“Concerning the Collection of Delinquent Taxes on Certain Mobile Homes,” by Rep. KC Becker and Sens. John Kefalas & Kevin Priola. The bill modifies the county treasurer’s duties in connection with the collection of delinquent taxes on mobile or manufactured homes that are not affixed to the ground.
  • SB 17-305“Concerning Modifications to Select Statutory Provisions Affecting Primary Elections Enacted by Voters at the 2016 Statewide General Election to Facilitate the Effective Implementation of the State’s Election Laws, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Sens. Stephen Fenberg & Kevin Lundberg and Reps. Patrick Neville & Mike Foote.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

  • HB 17-1113“Concerning Electronic Participation in Committee Meetings During the Legislative Interim,” by Reps. Yeulin Willett & Jeni Arndt and Sen. Ray Scott. The bill gives the executive committee of the legislative council the ability to consider, recommend, and establish policies regarding electronic participation by senators or representatives in committee meetings during the legislative interim.
  • HB 17-1258“Concerning Renaming Delta-Montrose Technical College to Technical College of the Rockies,” by Reps. Millie Hamner & Yeulin Willett and Sens. Kerry Donovan & Don Coram. The bill changes the name of ‘Delta-Montrose Technical College’ to ‘Technical College of the Rockies’.
  • SB 17-280“Concerning Extending the Repeal Date of the Colorado Economic Development Commission, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Sen. Jack Tate and Reps. Dan Thurlow & Tracy Kraft-Tharp. The bill extends the Colorado economic development commission by changing the repeal date of its organic statute to July 1, 2025.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

  • HB 17-1003“Concerning a Strategic Action Plan to Address Teacher Shortages in Colorado,” by Rep. Barbara McLaughlin and Sen. Don Coram. The bill requires the Department of Higher Education in partnership with the Department of Education to examine recruitment, preparation, and retention of teachers and to prepare a strategic plan to address teacher shortages in school districts and public schools within the state.
  • HB 17-1077“Concerning the Useful Public Service Cash Fund,” by Rep. Donald Valdez and Sen. Don Coram. The bill creates the useful public service cash fund in the judicial branch to facilitate the administration of programs that supervise the performance of useful public service by persons who are required to perform such service pursuant to a criminal sentence.
  • SB 17-117“Concerning Confirmation that Industrial Hemp is a Recognized Agricultural Product for Which a Person with a Water Right Decreed for Agricultural Use may Use the Water Subject to the Water Right for Industrial Hemp Cultivation,” by Sen. Don Coram and Reps. Donald Valdez & Marc Catlin. The bill confirms that a person with an absolute or conditional water right decreed for agricultural use may use the water subject to the water right for the growth or cultivation of industrial hemp if the person is registered by the Department of Agriculture to grow industrial hemp for commercial or research and development purposes.

Monday, May 22, 2017

  • HB 17-1104“Concerning the Exclusion from State Taxable Income of the Monetary Value of any Medal Won by an Athlete while Competing for the United States of America at the Olympic Games, so long as the Athlete’s Federal Adjusted Gross Income does not Exceed a Specified Amount,” by Rep. Clarice Navarro and Sen. Kevin Priola. The bill specifies that for the purpose of determining the state income tax liability of an individual, income earned as a direct result of winning a medal while competing for the United States of America at the olympic games is excluded from state taxable income.
  • HB 17-1283“Concerning the Creation of a Task Force to Examine Workforce Resiliency in the Child Welfare System,” by Reps. Jonathan Singer & Dan Nordberg and Sens. John Cooke & Leroy Garcia. The bill creates a task force to organize county-level versions of and guidelines for child welfare caseworker resiliency programs modeled on national resiliency programs.
  • HB 17-1289“Concerning a Requirement that the State Engineer Promulgate Rules that Establish an Optional Streamlined Approach to Calculate the Historical Consumptive Use of a Water Right,” by Reps. Donald Valdez & Chris Hansen and Sens. Larry Crowder & Don Coram. The bill directs the state engineer to promulgate rules that take into account local conditions that an applicant can use to calculate historical consumptive use.
  • SB 17-074“Concerning the Creation of a Pilot Program in Certain Areas of the State Experiencing High Levels of Opioid Addiction to Award Grants to Increase Access to Addiction Treatment, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation,” by Sen. Leroy Garcia and Rep. Daneya Esgar. The bill reates the medication-assisted treatment (MAT) expansion pilot program, administered by the University of Colorado College of Nursing, to expand access to medication-assisted treatment to opioid-dependent patients in Pueblo and Routt counties.
  • SB 17-105“Concerning Consumers’ Right to Know their Electric Utility charges by requiring investor-owned electric utilities to provide their customers with a comprehensive breakdown of cost on their monthly bills,” by Sen. Leroy Garcia and Reps. Daneya Esgar & KC Becker. The bill requires an investor-owned electric utility to file with the public utilities commission for the commission’s review a comprehensive billing format that the investor-owned electric utility has developed for its monthly billing of customers.
  • SB 17-153“Concerning Establishment of the Southwest Chief and Front Range Passenger Rail Commission to Oversee the Preservation and Expansion of Amtrak Southwest Chief Rail Service in Colorado and Facilitate the Development and Operation of a Front Range Passenger Rail System that Provides Passenger Rail Service In and Along the Interstate 25 Corridor,” by Sens. Larry Crowder & Leroy Garcia and Rep. Daneya Esgar. The bill replaces the existing southwest chief rail line economic development, rural tourism, and infrastructure repair and maintenance commission, the current statutory authorization for which expires on July 1, 2017, with an expanded southwest chief and front range passenger rail commission.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

  • HB 17-1248“Concerning the Funding of Colorado Water Conservation Board Projects, and, in Connection Therewith, Making Appropriations,” by Rep. Jeni Arndt and Sens. John Cooke & Jerry Sonnenberg. The bill appropriates the following amounts from the Colorado Water Conservation Board construction fund to the CWCB or the Division of Water Resources for certain projects.
  • HB 17-1279“Concerning the Requirement that a Unit Owners’ Association Obtain Approval Through a Vote of Unit Owners Before Filing a Construction Defect Action,” by Reps. Alec Garnett & Lori Saine and Sens. Lucia Guzman & Jack Tate. The bill requires that, before the executive board of a unit owners’ association (HOA) in a common interest community brings suit against a developer or builder on behalf of unit owners based on a defect in construction work not ordered by the HOA itself, the board must notify the unit owners, call a meeting of the executive board, and obtain approval of a majority of unit owners.
  • HB 17-1280“Concerning Conforming Colorado Statutory Language Related to Disability Trusts to the Federal ’21st Century Cures Act’,” by Reps. Dafna Michaelson Jenet & Dave Young and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill conforms Colorado statutory language relating to the creation of a disability trust to conform to the language established in the federal ’21st Century Cures Act’. Specifically, it clarifies that the individual who is the beneficiary of a disability trust can also be the person who establishes such trust.
  • HB 17-1353“Concerning Implementing Medicaid Initiatives that Create Higher Value in the Medicaid Program Leading to Better Health Outcomes for Medicaid Clients, and, in Connection Therewith, Continuing the Implementation of the Accountable Care Collaborative and Authorizing Performance-based Provider Payments,” by Rep. Dave Young and Sen. Kevin Lundberg. The bill authorizes the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to continue its implementation of the medicaid care delivery system, referred to as the accountable care collaborative (ACC).
  • SB 17-209“Concerning Access to the Ballot by Candidates,” by Sen. Kevin Priola and Rep. Mike Weissman. The bill makes various changes to the laws governing access to the ballot.
  • SB 17-232“Concerning Continuation under the Sunset Law of the Bingo-Raffle Advisory Board, and, in Connection Therewith, Implementing the Recommendations of the 2016 Sunset Report of the Department of Regulatory Agencies,” by Sen. Stephen Fenberg and Rep. Paul Rosenthal. The bill The bill implements the recommendations of the sunset review and report on the licensing of bingo and other games of chance through the Secretary of State.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

  • HB 17-1155“Concerning the Ability to Cure Campaign Finance Reporting Deficiencies Without Penalty,” by Rep. Dan Thurlow and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill requires the Secretary of State to give notice to the particular committee by e-mail of deficiencies alleged in a complaint pursuant to the campaign finance provisions of the state constitution or the ‘Fair Campaign Practices Act’ (FCPA).
  • HB 17-1317“Concerning the Authority of the State Historical Society to Dispose of Real Property Located on the Former Lowry Air Force Base,” by Reps. Daneya Esgar & Chris Hansen and Sens. John Kefalas & Randy Baumgardner. The bill grants the state historical society the authority to sell a vacant cold storage facility located on the former Lowry Air Force base.
  • HB 17-1342“Concerning Authorization for a County to Submit a Ballot Question for a County Public Safety Improvements Tax at a Biennial County or November Odd-year Election,” by Rep. Adrienne Benavidez and Sen. Larry Crowder. The bill authorizes a county to submit a ballot question at a biennial county election or an election held in November of an odd-numbered year.
  • HB 17-1356“Concerning the Temporary Authority of the Colorado Economic Development Commission to Allow Certain Businesses to Treat Specific Existing Income Tax Credits Differently,” by Reps. Crisanta Duran & Daneya Esgar and Sens. Leroy Garcia & Jack Tate. The bill allows the Colorado economic development commission to allow certain businesses that make a strategic capital investment in the state, subject to a maximum amount, and subject to the requirements of the specified income tax credits, to treat any of the following income tax credits allowed to the business as either carryforwardable for a five-year period or as transferable under certain circumstances.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

  • HB 17-1072: “Concerning Human Trafficking for Sexual Servitude,” by Reps. Lois Landgraf & Polly Lawrence and Sen. John Cooke. The bill amends the language defining the crime of human trafficking for sexual servitude to include that a person who knowingly advertises, offers to sell, or sells travel services that facilitate activities defined as human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude commits the offense of human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude. ‘Travel services’ are defined in the bill.
  • HB 17-1190“Concerning the Limited Applicability of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision in St. Jude’s Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, LLC, 351 P.3d 442 (Colo. 2015),” by Rep. KC Becker and Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg. The bill provides that the decision in the St. Jude’s Co. case interpreting section 37-92-103(4) does not apply to previously decreed absolute and conditional water rights or claims pending as of July 15, 2015. The interpretation of section 37-92-103 (4) in St. Jude’s Co. applies only to direct-flow appropriations, without storage, filed after July 15, 2015, for water diverted from a surface stream or tributary groundwater by a private entity for private aesthetic, recreational, and piscatorial purpose.
  • HB 17-1209“Concerning Peace Officer Designation for the Manager of the Office of Prevention and Security Within the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in the Department of Public Safety,” by Reps. Jovan Melton & Terri Carver and Sens. Rhonda Fields & John Cooke. The bill designates as a peace officer the manager of the office of prevention and security within the division of homeland security and emergency management in the department of public safety.
  • HB 17-1223“Concerning the Creation of a Fraud Reporting Hotline to be Administered by the State Auditor, and, in Connection Therewith, Establishing Referral and Reporting Processes and State Auditor Investigative Authority,” by Reps. Lori Saine & Tracy Kraft-Tharp and Sens. Cheri Jahn & Tim Neville. The bill requires the state auditor to establish and administer a telephone number, fax number, email address, mailing address, or internet-based form whereby any individual may report an allegation of fraud committed by a state employee or an individual acting under a contract with a state agency. This system is referred to in the bill as the ‘fraud hotline’ or ‘hotline’ and any report to the hotline as a ‘hotline call’.
  • HB 17-1238“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of Laws Related to Debt Management and Collection Services from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Rep. Pete Lee and Sen. Chris Holbert. The bill relocates the laws related to debt management and collection services from articles 14, 14.1, 14.3, and 14.5 of title 12.
  • HB 17-1239“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of Laws Related to Private Occupational Schools from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Rep. Cole Wist and Sen. Lucia Guzman. The bill creates a new article 64 in title 23 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and relocates the repealed provisions of article 59 of title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes to that article 64 and repeals article 59 of title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
  • HB 17-1240“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of the Laws Related to the Department of Public Health and Environment from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Rep. Cole Wist and Sen. John Cooke. The bill relocates Article 29.3 of title 12 to part 6 of article 1.5 of title 25 and Article 30 of title 12 to article 48 of title 25.
  • HB 17-1243“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of the Laws Related to Wholesale Sales Representatives from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Rep. Yeulin Willett and Sen. Lucia Guzman. The bill relocates article 66 of title 12, which relates to wholesale sales representatives, to title 13.
  • HB 17-1244: “Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of the Laws Related to Cemeteries from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Rep. Leslie Herod and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill relocates article 12 of title 12, which relates to cemeteries, to title 6.
  • HB 17-1245“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of the Laws Related to Public Establishments from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Rep. Mike Foote and Sen. Daniel Kagan. The bill relocates parts 1 and 3 of article 44 of title 12, which relate to public establishments, to title 6.
  • HB 17-1251“Concerning the Scheduled Repeal of Reports by Higher Education Agencies to the General Assembly,” by Rep. Dan Nordberg and Sen. Dominick Moreno. The bill addresses the reporting requirements of higher education agencies.
  • HB 17-1255: “Concerning the Scheduled Repeal of a Report by the Board of Veterans Affairs to the General Assembly,” by Rep. Dan Nordberg and Sen. Andy Kerr. The bill continues indefinitely a reporting requirement of the board of veterans affairs.
  • HB 17-1257: “Concerning the Scheduled Repeal of Reports by the Department of Natural Resources to the General Assembly,” by Rep. Jeni Arndt and Sen. Jack Tate. The bill continues indefinitely reporting requirements of the Department of Natural Resources that were scheduled to repeal according to section 24-1-136(11)(a)(I).
  • HB 17-1265“Concerning an Increase in the Total Employer Contribution for Employers in the Judicial Division of the Public Employees’ Retirement Association,” by Reps. KC Becker & Dan Nordberg and Sens. Andy Kerr & Kevin Priola. For the calendar year beginning in 2019, for the judicial division only, the bill increases the AED to 3.40% of total payroll and requires the AED payment to increase by 0.4% of total payroll at the start of each of the following 4 calendar years through 2023.
  • HB 17-1267“Concerning the Scheduled Repeal of Reports by Educational Agencies to the General Assembly,” by Rep. Jeni Arndt and Sen. Dominick Moreno. The bill addresses the reporting requirements of educational agencies.
  • HB 17-1295“Concerning the Repeal of the Governor’s Office of Marijuana Coordination,” by Rep. Bob Rankin and Sen. Dominick Moreno. The bill repeals the office of marijuana coordination, effective July 1, 2017.
  • HB 17-1298: “Concerning the Date by Which the State Personnel Director is Required to Submit the Annual Compensation Report,” by Rep. Millie Hamner and Sen. Kevin Lundberg. The bill changes the deadline for submission of the state personnel director’s annual report to September 15 of each year beginning with the 2017 report.
  • HB 17-1346“Concerning the Sale of More Than Fifteen Acres of Land at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Fort Logan to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for the Expansion of Fort Logan National Cemetery,” by Rep. Susan Lontine and Sen. Owen Hill. The bill grants the Department of Human Services authority to execute a land sale, at fair market value, to sell 51 additional acres, or up to 66 acres. The bill specifies that the proceeds of the sale of the additional 51 acres to the United States department of veterans affairs must be credited to the Fort Logan land sale account in the capital construction fund.
  • SB 17-222“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of the Laws Related to Fireworks from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Sen. John Cooke and Rep. Yeulin Willett. The bill relocates article 28 of title 12, which relates to fireworks, to a new part 20 of article 33.5 of title 24, which title pertains to the department of public safety.
  • SB 17-225“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of Laws Related to Farm Products from Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Sen. John Cooke and Rep. Yeulin Willett. The bill relocates part 2 of article 16 of title 12, the ‘Commodity Handler Act’, to article 36 of title 35; and part 1 of article 16 of title 12, the ‘Farm Products Act’, to article 37 of title 35.
  • SB 17-228“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Relocation of the Laws Related to Licenses Granted by Local Governments from Title 12, Colorado Revised Statutes, as Part of the Organizational Recodification of Title 12,” by Sen. Bob Gardner and Rep. Cole Wist. The bill relocates article 18 of title 12, which relates to dance halls, to title 30, which pertains to counties; article 25.5 of title 12, which relates to escort services, to title 29, which relates to local governments; and relocates article 56 of title 12, which relates to pawnbrokers, to title 29.
  • SB 17-242“Concerning Modernizing Terminology in the Colorado Revised Statutes Related to Behavioral Health,” by Sen. Beth Martinez Humenik and Reps. Kim Ransom & Joann Ginal. The bill updates and modernizes terminology in the Colorado Revised Statutes related to behavioral health, mental health, alcohol abuse, and substance abuse.
  • SB 17-243“Concerning the Continuation under the Sunset Law of the Motorcycle Operator Safety Training Program by the Director of the Office of Transportation Safety in the Department of Transportation, and, in Connection Therewith, Transferring the Operation of the Program to the Chief of the State Patrol Beginning in 2018,” by Sens. Nancy Todd & Randy Baumgardner and Rep. Dominique Jackson. The bill continues the motorcycle operator safety training program for 3 years, until 2020.
  • SB 17-279“Concerning Clarification of the Applicability Provisions of Recent Legislation to Promote an Equitable Financial Contribution Among Affected Public Bodies in Connection with Urban Redevelopment Projects Allocating Tax Revenues,” by Sens. Beth Martinez Humenik & Rachel Zenzinger and Reps. Matt Gray & Susan Beckman. The bill clarifies the applicability provisions of legislation enacted in 2015 and 2016 to promote an equitable financial contribution among affected public bodies in connection with urban redevelopment projects allocating tax revenues.
  • SB 17-291“Concerning Continuation of the School Safety Resource Center Advisory Board,” by Sen. Beth Martinez Humenik and Rep. Jeff Bridges. The bill implements the recommendations of the sunset review and report on the school safety resource center advisory board by eliminating the repeal date of the board and extending the board through September 1, 2022.
  • SB 17-293“Concerning Updating the Reference to a National Standard Setting Forth Certain Specifications Applicable to the Type of Paper Used to Publish the Colorado Revised Statutes,” by Sen. Daniel Kagan and Rep. Pete Lee. The bill updates the statutory reference to the current applicable alkaline minimum reserve requirements and acidity levels for uncoated paper as established by the American national standards institute and the national information standards organization.
  • SB 17-294“Concerning the Nonsubstantive Revision of Statutes in the Colorado Revised Statutes, as Amended, and, in Connection Therewith, Amending or Repealing Obsolete, Imperfect, and Inoperative Law to Preserve the Legislative Intent, Effect, and Meaning of the Law,” by Sen. Bob Gardner and Rep. Pete Lee. The bill amends, repeals, and reconstructs various statutory provisions of law that are obsolete, imperfect, or inoperative. The specific reasons for each amendment or repeal are set forth in the appendix to the bill.
  • SB 17-304“Concerning the Authority of the Joint Technology Committee,” by Sens. Angela Williams & Beth Martinez Humenik and Reps. Dan Thurlow & Jonathan Singer. The bill adds definitions of ‘cybersecurity’ and ‘data privacy’ for the purposes of the joint technology committee. In addition, the bill modifies the definition of ‘oversee’ for the purposes of the committee to be consistent with other statutory provisions.

Friday, May 26, 2017

  • SB 17-254“Concerning the Provision for Payment of the Expenses of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Departments of the State of Colorado, and of its Agencies and Institutions, For and During the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2017, Except as Otherwise Noted,” by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Millie Hamner. The bill provides for the payment of expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state of Colorado, and of its agencies and institutions, for and during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017, except as otherwise noted.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

  • SB 17-267“Concerning the Sustainability of Rural Colorado,” by Sens. Lucia Guzman & Jerry Sonnenberg and Reps. KC Becker & Jon Becker. The bill creates a new Colorado healthcare affordability and sustainability enterprise (CHASE) within the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF), effective July 1, 2017, to charge and collect a healthcare affordability and sustainability fee that functions similarly to the repealed hospital provider fee. Because CHASE is an enterprise for purposes of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), its revenue does not count against the state fiscal year spending limit.

For a list of the governor’s 2017 legislative actions, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Unavailability of Transcript of Child’s In Camera Interview Violated Parents’ Due Process Rights

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of H.K.W. on Thursday, May 18, 2017.

Dependency and Neglect—In Camera Interview of Child—Record of In Camera Interview.

The Weld County Department of Human Services (the Department) filed a dependency or neglect petition regarding 6-year-old H.K.W. The child was initially removed from the home and placed with father, and three days later with special respondents. In a prior dependency and neglect case, the child had also been placed with special respondents.

The trial court adjudicated the child dependent or neglected. Father and mother complied with the court ordered treatment plans. Father, mother, and special respondents later moved for an allocation of parental responsibilities. The child’s guardian ad litem (GAL) moved for an in camera interview with the child. None of the parties objected. The court agreed to interview the child and told the parties it would have a record made that would be sealed unless the matter was appealed. There were no objections.

The interview with the child was recorded but not transcribed, and none of the parties requested a transcript. At a subsequent hearing, the court allocated parental responsibilities to special respondents and set forth a parenting time schedule for mother and father. In making its findings, the court relied extensively on the child’s statements during the in camera interview. Father and mother appealed, and father requested a transcript of the interview. The trial court denied father’s request.

On appeal, father and mother argued that the trial court erred by relying on the in camera interview with the child, which was not admitted into evidence, as the basis for its allocation of parental responsibilities decision. They asserted their due process rights were violated because without access to the interview transcript, they were unable to contest the court’s findings or the information on which it relied.

Although the Children’s Code does not specifically allow a court to conduct an in camera interview with a child, C.R.S. § 19-1-106(5) provides that a child “may be heard separately when deemed necessary” by the court. The Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act (UDMA) provides that the “court may interview the child in chambers to ascertain the child’s wishes as to the allocation of parental responsibilities.” Read together, the court of appeals concluded that a trial court is permitted to conduct an in camera interview with a child to determine a child’s best interests and how to allocate parental responsibilities within a dependency and neglect proceeding.

The Children’s Code does not address whether a record of an in camera interview with a child must be made. The UDMA requires the trial court to make a record of the interview, which must be part of the case record. The court concluded that, unless waived by the parties, a record of the interview must be made. Further, the record must be made available, upon request, in situations when a parent needs (1) to determine whether the court’s findings, insofar as they relied on facts from the interview, are supported by the record, or (2) an opportunity to contest information supplied by the child during the interview and relied on by the court.

In this case, the parents requested access to a transcript only after they filed a notice of appeal. By not requesting access earlier, they waived their right to access the transcript to rebut information presented during the interview, but they did not waive their right to access the transcript for the purpose of contesting the bases for the court’s findings related to the interview. Thus, the trial court erred in not ordering the transcript to be made and made part of the record on appeal.

The trial court was ordered to have the in camera interview transcribed and transmitted, as a suppressed document, to the court as a supplement to the record on appeal. Following supplemental briefing, the court will issue an opinion addressing the merits of the appeal.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Attorneys’ Charging Liens May Attach to Spousal Maintenance Awards

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stoorman & Associates, P.C. v. Dixon on Monday, May 15, 2017.

Attorneys’ Liens—Dissolution of Marriage.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether attorneys’ charging liens may attach to spousal maintenance awards under Colorado’s attorney’s lien statute. The court applied the plain language of the attorney’s lien statute, C.R.S. § 12-5-119, which provides that attorneys shall have a lien on “any judgment they may have obtained or assisted in obtaining,” and held that an attorney’s charging lien may attach to an award of spousal maintenance. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded this case to that court with instructions to return the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Mutuality is Necessary Element of Defensive Claim Preclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Foster v. Plock on Monday, May 15, 2017.

Claim Preclusion—Issue Preclusion—Mutuality.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether mutuality is a necessary element of defensive claim preclusion. Although multiple divisions of the court of appeals have concluded that mutuality need not be established for the defensive use of claim preclusion, the supreme court disagrees. Instead, the court concluded that mutuality is a necessary element of defensive claim preclusion. The court also concluded that mutuality existed in this case, as did the remaining elements of claim preclusion, and therefore affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals on other grounds.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: UCCJEA Vests Issuing State with Exclusive Jurisdiction to Modify Custody Order

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of M.S. on Thursday, May 4, 2017.

Dependency and NeglectAllocation of Parental ResponsibilitiesSubject Matter JurisdictionUniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

The Mesa County Department of Human Services (Department) assumed temporary custody of 8-year-old M.S. and initiated a dependency and neglect proceeding. Mother lived in Texas.

The court, by stipulation, adjudicated M.S. dependent or neglected. The Department then moved for a permanent allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) for M.S. to mother. The magistrate determined it was in M.S.’s best interests to be placed with mother and issued an order granting permanent APR to mother.

Father appealed, and a court of appeals division dismissed for failure to obtain district court review. Father then filed a petition for district court review, which was denied, and he appealed again.

Initially, the court of appeals addressed the Department’s argument that the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) does not apply to dependency and neglect proceedings once a child has been adjudicated dependent and neglected. The UCCJEA does not exempt any stage of a dependency and neglect proceeding from its purview.

The court, sua sponte, concluded that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to issue the permanent APR order. Under the UCCJEA, the court that makes an initial custody determination generally retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. As a result, a Colorado court, absent temporary emergency jurisdiction, may only modify a custody order issued by an out-of-state court under limited circumstances. Here, a California court had issued a custody order before the initiation of the dependency and neglect proceeding. The magistrate did not confer with the California court that issued the custody order or make a determination as to whether the California court had lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Consequently, the magistrate failed to acquire jurisdiction under the UCCJEA before issuing the APR order that effectively modified the California custody order.

The judgment was vacated and the matter was remanded to the district court to direct the magistrate to determine whether it has jurisdiction to issue an APR order that modifies the California custody order.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Court Overrides Presumption of Fit Parent by Specifying Methods to be Used for Punishment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Marriage of Dean and Cook on Thursday, April 20, 2017.

Parenting TimeContemptEvidenceTranscriptsMagistrateExceeding AuthorityHearingAttorney FeesReasonableness.

Dean (mother) and Cook (father) divorced in 2006. Father filed a contempt motion on the basis that mother denied his parenting time. On May 19, 2014, the court set the contempt hearing over and ordered mother to engage in therapy. On November 3, 2014, the court found mother in contempt of court, ordered that she could purge the contempt by allowing father to have the children during their 2014 Thanksgiving break, and ordered her to pay father’s attorney fees. Sentencing occurred on January 8, 2015, at which time the court ordered mother to pay father’s attorney fees.

On appeal, mother first contended that the magistrate improperly reconsidered the May 19 order when, on November 3, she changed the nature of the sanctions imposed. On May 19, the magistrate simply adopted the parties’ stipulation for mother to engage in therapy; the order was not imposed to force mother to comply with the parenting time stipulation. No sanctions were imposed until November 3, when the magistrate found mother guilty of remedial contempt.

Mother also challenged the evidence presented at the contempt and sentencing hearings, the weight the magistrate placed on that evidence, and the findings and inferences the magistrate made in her orders. Mother failed to provide a copy of the transcripts from the contempt and sentencing hearings to the district court when she sought review of the magistrate’s orders under C.R.M. 7(a). Therefore, it is presumed that the record supports the magistrate’s orders that mother failed to comply with the parties’ stipulation and was thus in remedial contempt.

Mother also contended that the magistrate exceeded her authority when she ordered mother to restrict the children’s privileges if they did not comply with her instructions to go to father’s home for parenting time. By specifying the methods mother must employ to obtain the children’s compliance, the magistrate’s order improperly disregards the presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children. Therefore, that portion of the order was stricken.

Mother further argued that the magistrate demonstrated bias against her and should have been disqualified. Mother’s allegations were based only on the magistrate’s legal rulings and the resolution of conflicting evidence, which are not bases for disqualification. Further, mother did not seek to have the magistrate disqualified under C.R.C.P. 97.

Lastly, mother argued that the magistrate should have held a hearing on the reasonableness of father’s attorney fee affidavit. Mother objected to father’s fee affidavit on the basis that it was ambiguous and lacked clarity, and she requested a hearing on the issue of reasonableness. Once she raised these assertions, the magistrate should have held a hearing on this issue.

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded with directions.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.