April 30, 2016

SB 16-133: Changing Procedures for Affirming Shared Ownership of Real Property at Death of Decedent

On February 18, 2016, Sens. Jack Tate & Michael Johnston and Reps. Dan Pabon & Yeulin Willett introduced SB 16-133Concerning the Transfer of Property Rights upon the Death of a Person, and, in Connection Therewith, Clarifying Determination-Of-Heirship Proceedings in Probate. The bill was introduced into the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was amended. It passed through the Senate with amendments on Second Reading and passed through the House without further amendments. It is now awaiting the governor’s signature.

Under current law, a certificate of death, a verification of death document, or a certified copy thereof, of a person who is a joint tenant may be placed of record with the county clerk and recorder of the county in which the real property affected by the joint tenancy is located, together with a supplementary affidavit. First, this bill removes the requirement that the person who swears to and affirms the supplementary affidavit has no record interest in the real property, while requiring that the supplementary affidavit include a statement that the person referred to in the certificate is the same person who is named in a specific recorded deed or similar instrument creating the joint tenancy.

Second, this bill amends provisions concerning determination-of-heirship proceedings, as follows:

  1. Amends the definition of “interested person” to mean an owner by descent or succession so that anyone affected by the ownership of property may commence a proceeding;
  2. Requires the petition to contain additional information with respect to the property at issue, each decedent, any previous administration of the decedent’s property, and any unknown interested person;
  3. Imposes additional requirements upon a petition if the decedent died testate, depending on whether the decedent’s will has or has not been previously admitted to probate, and if the will has not been probated, the petition must contain a statement that the original will is unavailable;
  4. Requires a petitioner’s notice to identify the petition, and include the name of the each decedent, the name of each interested party, a legal description of any real property, the time and place of the hearing on the petition, and that any objection to the petition must be filed in writing with the court on or before the hearing date and served upon the petitioner; notice shall also be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the proceeding was filing, and in the county in which the real property at issue is located;
  5. Requires upon the entry of a decree affecting title to real property, a certified copy of the decree must be recorded and indexed in the office of the county clerk and recorder of each county in which real property is located, as if it were a deed of conveyance from the decedent; and
  6. Establishes that the admission of a previously unprobated will applies only to the decedent’s particular property interest described in the petition.

Third, this bill enacts portions of section 5 of the “Uniform Power of Appointment Act,” with amendments.

Max Montag is a 2016 J.D. Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

e-Legislative Report: Week of April 11, 2016

legislationWelcome to another edition of the e-leg report. We’re nearing the halfway point at the capitol, and that means the state budget debate is at hand. A number of bills that the CBA is working are subject to appropriations – and only after the budget debate is settled will we know whether they are likely to be funded or not.

Feel free to drop me a line on how we are doing or raise an issue on a piece of legislation. Contact me atjschupbach@cobar.org.

CBA Legislative Policy Committee

For followers who are new to CBA legislative activity, the Legislative Policy Committee (“LPC”) is the CBA’s legislative policy making arm during the legislative session. The LPC meets weekly during the legislative session to determine CBA positions from requests from the various sections and committees of the Bar Association. Members are welcome to attend the meetings—please RSVP if you are interested.

LPC Meeting Update

Here is a quick rundown of the bills on which we have recently taken a position.

HB 16-1211 – Marijuana Transporter License

The bill creates a retail marijuana transporter license and a medical marijuana transporter license. The license is valid for five years. A licensed marijuana transporter (transporter) provides logistics, distribution, and storage of marijuana and marijuana products. A transporter may contract with multiple businesses and may also hold another marijuana license. A transporter must be licensed by December 31, 2017, in order to continue to operate. The bill describes the circumstances under which a business can terminate a contract with a transporter.

The Bar’s Cannabis Law Committee is currently monitoring and preparing comments on this bill. The bill is working through its first chamber and has been greatly amended from its original form. The Legislative Policy Committee has not taken action on this bill.

HB 16-1235 – Commissions Evaluating State Judicial Performance

The bill makes revisions to various functions of the state commission on judicial performance (state commission) and the district commissions on judicial performance (district commission), referred to collectively as the “commissions.”

This bill was postponed indefinitely (killed) in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. The Colorado Bar Association had many concerns with the cost and operation of the bill.

HB 16-1270 – Security Interest Owner’s Interest In Business Entity

Under current law, the Uniform Commercial Code (Code) invalidates contractual limits on the transferability of some assets that can be subject to a security interest. In 2006, the Colorado Corporations and Associations Act (Act) was amended to clearly and broadly exempt an owner’s interest in a business entity from these Code provisions to effectuate the “pick your partner” principle that allows small businesses to control their ownership. Section 3 of the bill narrows the exemption in the Act to that necessary for “pick your partner,” and sections 1 and 2 codify this narrowed exemption in the Code.

This bill, part of a four bill package of business entities clean up acts, was supported by the Bar and has passed the House and Senate and is on its way to be signed by the Governor.

HB 16-1275 – Taxation Of Corporate Income Sheltered In Tax Haven

The bill pertains to an affiliated group of corporations filing a combined report. In a combined report filing, the tax is based on a percentage of the entire taxable income of all of the includable corporations, but the tax is assessed only against the corporation or corporations doing business in Colorado. Including more affiliated corporations in the combined report may result in an increase in income subject to tax.

There are jurisdictions located outside of the United States with no tax or very low rates of taxation, strict bank secrecy provisions, a lack of transparency in their tax system operations, and a lack of effective exchange of information with other countries. There are several common legal strategies for sheltering corporate income in such jurisdictions, often called “tax havens.”

Notwithstanding a current requirement in state law that those corporations with 80% or more of their property and payroll assigned to locations outside of the United States be excluded from a combined report, the bill makes a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of tax avoidance an includable C corporation for purposes of the combined report.

The bill defines a corporation incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of tax avoidance to mean any C corporation that is incorporated in a jurisdiction that has no or nominal effective tax on the relevant income and that meets one or more of five factors listed in the bill, unless it is proven to the satisfaction of the executive director of the Department of Revenue that such corporation is incorporated in that jurisdiction for a legitimate business purpose.

The bill requires the state controller to credit a specified amount per fiscal year to the state education fund to be used to help fund public school education.

The bill requires the secretary of state to submit a ballot question, to be treated as a proposition, at the statewide election to be held in November 2016 asking voters:

  • To increase taxes annually by the taxation of a corporation’s state income that is sheltered in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of tax avoidance;
  • To use the resulting tax revenue to help fund elementary and secondary public school education; and
  • To allow an estimate of the resulting tax revenue to be collected and spent notwithstanding any limitations in section 20 of article X of the state constitution (TABOR).

The Tax Law section of the CBA voted to oppose this bill, which was postponed indefinitely (killed) by the Senate State Affairs Committee. The Bar had concerns over the cost of vague language in the bill as well as the impact on the courts and judicial system.

HB 16-1310 – Operators Liable For Oil And Gas Operations

Under current law governing relations between surface owners and oil and gas operators, to prevail on a claim the surface owner must present evidence that the operator’s use of the surface materially interfered with the surface owner’s use of the surface of the land. The bill amends this requirement to allow proof that the operator’s oil and gas operations harmed the surface owner’s use of the surface of the land, caused bodily injury to the surface owner or any person residing on the property of the surface owner, or damaged the surface owner’s property.

The Legislative Policy Committee voted to oppose this bill because it upends the burden of proof responsibility. The bill has passed the House and is moving on to the Senate, where it will be heard by the Agriculture Committee.

HB 16-1331 – Policies On Juvenile Shackling In Court

The bill requires restraints on a juvenile to be removed prior to any court proceeding, except when the court determines the restraints are necessary:

  • To prevent physical harm to the juvenile or another person;
  • To prevent disruptive courtroom behavior by the juvenile, evidenced by a history of behavior that created potentially harmful situations or presented substantial risk of physical harm; or
  • To prevent the juvenile from fleeing the courtroom, when there is evidence of an escape history or other relevant factors.

The prosecution, sheriff, or any other detention or pretrial personnel may request that an individual juvenile be restrained in the courtroom. The court shall provide the juvenile’s attorney an opportunity to be heard before the court allows the use of restraints on a juvenile. The court may conduct a hearing on the use of restraints without the juvenile being present.

The CBA supports this bill as good policy and an extension of the efforts the courts have made this past year. While the courts need discretion, we believe this bill strikes the right balance for outlining the policies on how and when juveniles should be subject to shackling.

HB 16-1346 – Open Records Subject To Inspection Denial

The bill allows a custodian to deny access to confidential personal information records and employee personal e-mail addresses. The provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) that relate to civil or administrative investigations and trade secrets and other privileged and confidential information apply to the judicial branch.

The Bar Association opposed this bill because of constitutional and separation of powers concerns regarding the relationship between the judicial and legislative branches of government. In addition, we believe that the PAIRR rules issued by the Chief Justice, which closely mirror the text of CORA, are better suited to meet the information needs of requesters while maintaining the integrity of judicial records.

HB 16-1394 -Aligning Issues Around At-risk Persons

The bill implements the following recommendations of the at-risk adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities mandatory reporting implementation task force:

  • Standardizing statutory definitions among the Colorado Criminal Code, adult protective services in the department of human services, and the office of community living in the department of health care policy and financing;
  • Specifying that enhanced penalties for crimes against an at-risk person apply to all persons 70 years of age or older and to all persons with a disability; and
  • Clarifying and expanding the definitions of persons who are required to report instances of mistreatment of at-risk elders or at-risk adults with an intellectual and developmental disability (adults with IDD).

The bill also:

  • Reduces the time in which a law enforcement agency or county department is required to prepare a written report from 48 hours to 24 hours;
  • Specifies that a county department of human or social services is to conduct an investigation of allegations of mistreatment of an at-risk adult; and
  • Clarifies that the human rights committee is responsible for ensuring that an investigation of mistreatment of an adult with IDD occurred.

The Colorado Bar Association opposed the bill as written, but is working with stakeholders to review amendments from other stakeholder groups. We are working with and talking with the sponsors frequently.

SB 16-130 – Methods To Collect Consumer Use Tax

Consumer use tax is the complement to sales tax and is due on the purchases of goods where the retailer did not charge sales tax. For example, any time consumers make an Internet purchase and the out-of-state retailer does not charge sales tax, the purchaser should pay the equivalent amount of sales tax as consumer use tax directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue (department). The department has added a use tax line to the 2015 individual income tax return form in an effort to make self-reporting of use tax more convenient for consumers.

The bill specifies that after the 2015 income tax year the department is not allowed to add use tax reporting lines to the individual income tax return form for any reason. The bill also prohibits the department from auditing any taxpayer for any amount he or she reported on the use tax lines included in the 2015 individual income tax return form.

The CBA is monitoring this bill and has sought permission to make changes to the bill to ensure that collecting use taxes is efficient.

SB 16-131 Overseeing Fiduciaries’ Management Of Assets

The bill clarifies statutory language concerning the removal of a fiduciary to ensure that a fiduciary’s authority is suspended as soon as a petition to remove the fiduciary is filed. The bill adds a provision to the conservatorship statutes stating that an adult ward or protected person has a right to be represented by a lawyer of their choosing unless the trial court finds the person lacks sufficient capacity to provide informed consent for representation by a lawyer. The bill states that after a fiduciary receives notice of proceedings for his, her, or its removal, the fiduciary shall not pay compensation or attorney fees and costs from the estate without an order of the court.

This bill rearranges the existing responsibilities for fiduciaries managing assets. It is a cleanup and reorganization of these statutes and adds the right to legal counsel for wards and protected persons. The bill is scheduled for committee later this week.

SB 16-133 – Transfer Of Property Rights At Death

Under current law, a certificate of death, a verification of death document, or a certified copy thereof, of a person who is a joint tenant may be placed of record with the county clerk and recorder of the county in which the real property affected by the joint tenancy is located, together with a supplementary affidavit. The bill removes the requirement that the person who swears to and affirms the supplementary affidavit has no record interest in the real property. The bill includes inherited individual retirement accounts and inherited Roth individual retirement accounts as property exempt from levy and sale under writ of attachment or writ of execution.

The bill amends provisions concerning determination-of-heirship proceedings, as follows:

  • Clarifies the definition of “interested person” so that anyone affected by the ownership of property may commence a proceeding;
  • Describes when an unprobated will may be used as part of a proceeding;
  • Clarifies notice requirements; and
  • Ensures that a judgment and decree will convey legal title as opposed to equitable title.

The bill enacts portions of section 5 of the Uniform Power of Appointment Act, with amendments.
This bill, the second part of the Colorado Bar Association’s probate reorganization bills, has passed the legislature and will be sent to the Governor shortly.

Bills that the LPC is monitoring, watching or working on can be found at this link:
http://www.statebillinfo.com/sbi/index.cfm?fuseaction=Public.Dossier&id=21762&pk=996

Colorado Court of Appeals: Monies Held in Joint Accounts Not Part of Probate Estate

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Estate of Sandstead on Thursday, April 7, 2016.

Auriel and Willard Sandstead attempted to avoid probate by titling their real estate and bank accounts jointly in their names and two of their three daughters’ names. The couple executed wills in 1991 and again in 2000. After Willard’s death, Auriel presented only the 1991 will for probate and neglected to mention the 2000 will.

Auriel held proceeds from the sale of a family farm in a joint bank account with the two daughters, Vicki Sandstead (Sandstead) and Shauna Sandstead Corona (Corona). After an altercation with a Wells Fargo employee, Sandstead transferred $200,000 out of the joint account and into an account at Citizens Bank in Massachusetts that she held jointly with her mother but not with Corona. Sandstead used those funds for her mother’s benefit during her lifetime and also to conduct repairs on some of the properties held jointly.

After Auriel died, Sandstead and Corona executed small estate affidavits as to their parents’ personal property, since most of the assets had been removed from probate by joint titling with their daughters. Sandstead noticed some items missing from the estate, and opened a probate case where she was named as PR. Corona petitioned to remove Sandstead as PR, and a successor was agreed upon by the sisters. Corona moved for surcharge, attorney fees, and other relief against Sandstead as to her actions as PR, specifically alleging Sandstead breached her fiduciary duties to Corona because of the $200,000 transfer prior to their mother’s death. The district court surcharged Sandstead for the $200,000 transfer and two other transfers occurring before the probate estate was opened.

At some point, the sisters became aware of the 2000 will. Corona challenged the will as having been revoked by their mother. Sandstead and the two grandsons included as heirs in the 2000 will argued that the in terrorem clause in the 2000 will barred Corona from recovering under the will. The district court granted Sandstead’s motion for enforcement of the in terrorem clause in the 2000 will against Corona. The district court noted that if the parents were unaware of the 2000 will as Corona claimed, it was hard to imagine how they could have revoked it. Both sisters appealed.

On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s surcharge. The court held that Sandstead had a legal right to transfer the moneys due to being a signatory on the joint bank account. The assets in the Citizens Bank account were never part of the probate estate and therefore could not have been subject to surcharge. The court found that Sandstead had never intended for the monies to be included in the probate estate, and had vehemently denied their inclusion when the issue was raised in court. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s surcharge against Sandstead. The court upheld the district court’s enforcement of the in terrorem clause in the 2000 will against Corona, finding that she could not have reasonably believed that her mother had revoked the 2000 will since there was no evidence Willard and Auriel had executed subsequent wills or destroyed the 2000 will, the only two ways enumerated in the statute to revoke a will.

The district court’s order was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets, Tampering with Deceased Human Bodies, and More Bills Signed

On Thursday, April 7, 2016, Governor Hickenlooper signed five bills into law. To date, he has signed 78 bills into law this legislative session. The bills signed Thursday include a bill creating a new crime of tampering with deceased human bodies, a bill promoting the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, a bill regarding the Department of Corrections’ authority to distribute medication, and more. The bills signed Thursday are summarized here.

  • SB 16-010 – Concerning the Purchase of an Off-Highway Vehicle by a Dealer, by Sen. Randy Baumgardner and Rep. Jon Becker. The bill allows a powersports dealer to purchase a used off-highway vehicle without a title if it was purchased in a jurisdiction that does not issue titles for such vehicles or if it was purchased in Colorado prior to January 1, 2014.
  • SB 16-034 – Concerning Tampering with a Deceased Human Body, by Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg and Reps. Rhonda Fields & Polly Lawrence. The bill creates a new crime of tampering with a deceased human body in order to impair its appearance or availability for an official proceeding.
  • SB 16-088 – Concerning the “Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act,” by Sen. Pat Steadman and Rep. Yeulin Willett. The bill sets forth conditions under which certain fiduciaries may access a decedent’s electronic communications, a catalog of communications sent or received by a principal or decedent, or any other digital asset in which a decedent had a right.
  • HB 16-1152 – Concerning the Authority of the Department of Corrections to Distribute Medication, by Rep. Mike Foote and Sen. John Cooke. The bill authorizes the Department of Corrections to distribute compounded and prepackaged medications to its pharmacies.
  • HB 16-1353 – Concerning Payment of Expenses of the Legislative Department, by Reps. Crisanta Duran & Brian DelGrosso and Sens. Mark Scheffel & Lucia Guzman. The bill provides FY 2016-17 appropriations to the legislative department.

For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2016 legislative decisions, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Trial Court Not Required to Order Accounting at Request of Interested Person

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Sidman v. Sidman on Thursday, March 24, 2016.

Legal Guardian—Motion for Accounting—Discretion.

In 2002 Michael and Renee Sidman were appointed as legal guardians for their nephew, who was born in 1999. The parents paid child support and filed a motion for an accounting. The trial court denied the motion, and the parents appealed.

The guardians filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that (1) the order denying the motion for an accounting was not a final, appealable order because a motion to modify child support was pending and the order did not resolve all pending matters, and (2) the court should have followed the law of the case and not reached the merits of the motion, based on its two previous orders denying similar requests for accountings. Even if the order was not final at the time the appeal was filed, the jurisdictional defect was cured when the motion to modify child support was resolved in November 2014. Furthermore, the trial court was not compelled by the law of the case to refrain from considering the parents’ motion; the decision was a matter in the court’s discretion.

The parents contended on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion for accounting. The Court of Appeals determined that CRS § 15-14-207(2)(e) did not require the court to order the guardians to provide an accounting. Instead, the parents’ motion triggered the court’s duty to exercise its discretion as to whether to order an accounting and the extent of any such accounting. The court properly exercised its discretion.

The order was affirmed.

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

SB 16-026: Preventing Restriction of Communication Rights of Protected Persons

On January 13, 2016, Sen. Laura Woods introduced SB 16-026Concerning Personal Rights of Protected Persons, and, In Connection Therewith, Limiting the Ability of a Guardian or Conservator to Isolate a Protected Person. The bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was amended and referred to Appropriations.

The proposed bill provides that a guardian or conservator shall not restrict a protected person’s right of communication, visitation, or interaction with other persons. Unless a restriction is authorized by a court order, this includes the right to receive visitors, telephone calls, or personal mail. A court may issue such order restricting communications, visitations, or interactions if good cause can be shown by a guardian or conservator.

Additionally, an interested person, including the protected person, who has a reasonable belief that the guardian or conservator has violated the court order may move the court to do any one of the following: (1) require the guardian or conservator to grant a person access to the protected person; (2) restrict, or further restrict, a person’s access to the protected person; (3) modify the guardian or conservator’s duties; or (4) remove the guardian or conservator.

The proposed bill also provides that a guardian or conservator who knowingly isolates a protected person in violation of the law or a court order is subject to removal.

The bill also proposes certain instances in which the guardian or conservator must notify the protected person’s closest known family members or person designated by the protected person. These instances are: (1) if the protected person changes his or her residence; (2) if the protected person resides at a location other than his or her residence for more than 7 days; (3) if the protected person is admitted to a medical facility for acute care or emergency care; or (4) if the protected person dies.

Mark Proust is a 2016 JD Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

DOR Beneficiary Designation Bill, Medical Marijuana Testing Facility Licensing Bill, and More Signed

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016, Governor Hickenlooper signed 13 bills into law. To date, the governor has signed 59 bills this legislative session. The bills signed Wednesday include a bill requiring the Department of Revenue to create its own beneficiary designation form for vehicle ownership transfer on death, a bill allowing local licensing authorities to issue medical marijuana testing facility licenses, and more.

  • HB 16-1051 – Concerning the Issuance of Beneficiary Designation Forms to Facilitate the Transfer of Ownership of a Vehicle Upon the Death of an Owner, by Rep. Kevin Van Winkle and Sen. Chris Holbert. The bill requires the Department of Revenue to create its own beneficiary designation form for the transfer of vehicle ownership.
  • HB 16-1064 – Concerning Local Licensing of Marijuana Testing Facilities, by Rep. J. Paul Brown and Sen. Ellen Roberts. The bill allows a local medical marijuana licensing authority to issue medical marijuana testing facility licenses.
  • HB 16-1091 – Concerning a Change to the Biennial Filing Date for Rate-Regulated Electric Utilities to Submit Their Plans for Transmission Facilities to the Public Utilities Commission and, in Connection Therewith, Deleting the Requirement that the Commission Issue a Final Order within One Hundred Eighty Days After an Application for the Construction or Expansion of Transmission Facilities is Filed, by Reps. Dan Thurlow & Diane Mitsch Bush and Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg. Current law requires rate regulated electric utilities to submit plans and other documents to the PUC by October 31 of each odd-numbered year. The bill changes the requirement so that the PUC can set the date for plan submission.
  • HB 16-1119 – Concerning a Modification to the Number of Days that an Aircraft May Remain in the State After it is Purchased for Purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Exemption on the Purchase of Certain Aircraft, by Rep. Dan Thurlow and Sen. Chris Holbert. The bill expands the sales and use tax exemptions for aircraft.
  • SB 16-055 – Concerning the Conduct of Elections to Choose the Board of Directors of a Cooperative Electric Association, by Sen. Kevin Grantham and Rep. Dominick Moreno. Currently, cooperative electric associations may exempt themselves from regulation by the PUC, and may contract with third parties to collect and count the ballots for board elections. The bill allows the ballots to be mailed directly to the third party.
  • SB 16-063 – Concerning the Authority of a Local Government to Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement with an Out-of-State Local Government to Provide Critical Public Services, by Sen. Ellen Roberts and Rep. Edward Vigil. The bill authorizes local governments to contract with local governments in bordering states to provide emergency services.
  • SB 16-089 – Concerning the Establishment of an Alternative Maximum Reserve for the Department of State Cash Fund, by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Millie Hamner. The bill allows an alternative maximum reserve for the Department of State Cash Fund equal to 16.5 percent of total expenditures plus an amount equal to any unexpended moneys from the previous year.
  • SB 16-090 – Concerning the Ability of the Department of Public Health and Environment to Collect Data on Marijuana Health Effects at a Regional Level, by Sen. Pat Steadman and Rep. Dave Young. The bill allows data regarding marijuana health effects to be reported at the regional level instead of only the county level.
  • SB 16-091 – Concerning Timing of the Statewide Discovery Sharing System, by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Millie Hamner. The bill delays the start of the statewide eDiscovery sharing system from November 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017.
  • SB 16-092 – Concerning the Authorization of the State to Act Pursuant to the Federal “Oil Pollution Act of 1990,” by Sen. Kevin Grantham and Rep. Bob Rankin. The bill allows money recovered for damages pursuant to the federal Oil Pollution Act to be deposited in the Natural Resource Damage Recovery Fund.
  • SB 16-093 – Concerning Transfer of the Oversight of Independent Living Services from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Labor and Employment, by Sen. Kent Lambert and Rep. Dave Young. The bill transfers oversight of independent living services for persons with disabilities to the Department of Labor and Employment.
  • SB 16-095 – Concerning the Five-Year Appropriations Requirement for Bills that Change the Periods of Incarceration in State Correctional Facilities, by Sen. Pat Steadman and Rep. Dave Young. The bill modifies the manner in which fiscal notes and appropriations affecting the Department of Corrections are made.
  • SB 16-107 – Concerning the Regulation of Voter Registration Drive Circulators and, in Connection Therewith, Requiring Circulators to Complete Mandatory Training, by Sen. John Cooke and Rep. Dan Pabon. The bill requires voter registration drive circulators to meet training requirements established by the Secretary of State prior to circulating any voter registration applications.

For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2016 legislative decisions, click here.

e-Legislative Report: Week of March 14, 2016

Welcome to another edition of the e-leg report. We’re nearing the halfway point at the capitol, and that means the state budget debate is at hand. A number of bills that the CBA is working are subject to appropriations – and only after the budget debate is settled will we know whether they are likely to be funded or not.

Feel free to drop me a line on how we are doing or raise an issue on a piece of legislation. Contact me at jschupbach@cobar.org.

CBA Legislative Policy Committee

For followers who are new to CBA legislative activity, the Legislative Policy Committee (“LPC”) is the CBA’s legislative policy making arm during the legislative session. The LPC meets weekly during the legislative session to determine CBA positions from requests from the various sections and committees of the Bar Association. Members are welcome to attend the meetings—please RSVP if you are interested.

LPC Meeting held Friday, February 26, 2016

There was no meeting of the LPC on March 4. We will be considering a number of bills this coming week, but here is a quick rundown of the bills on which we have recently taken a position.

HB 16-1165 – Colorado Child Support Commission Statutory Changes
The LPC voted to seek an amendment to this bill, which was subsequently added in the House before the bill was passed on to the Senate. The amendments offered clarify the calculations of parenting time in certain circumstances

HB 16-1275 – Taxation Of Corporate Income Sheltered In Tax Haven
The LPC voted to oppose this bill because of vague language that could result in unnecessary litigation and an additional burden on the judiciary.

HB 16-1270 – Security Interest Owner’s Interest In Business Entity
This is the first of a package of four business law clean-up bills from the Business Law Section. It aims to protect the security interest of owners and secure the “pick a partner” provision in Colorado law for all types of business entities.

SB 16-131 – Overseeing Fiduciaries’ Management Of Assets
This bill, written by members of the Trust & Estate and Elder Law sections, clarifies provisions in the Colorado Probate Code regarding a person’s right to counsel and the removal of a fiduciary.

SB 16-133 – Transfer Of Property Rights At Death
This bill clarifies the process and rights associated with property transfers after death by clarifying existing law and providing that the Colorado Probate Code prevails over the Uniform Power of Appointment Act where the Colorado Probate Code is better suited for the state’s probate process.

Bills that the LPC is monitoring, watching or working on can be found here.

New Bills of Interest

HB 16-1339 – Agricultural Property Foreclosure
Current law establishes the initial date of sale of foreclosed property based on who is selling the property and whether the property is agricultural or nonagricultural. Property is nonagricultural unless all of the property is considered agricultural. The bill extends the provisions relating to agricultural property to property in which any part is agricultural.

SB 16-148 – Require Civics Test Before Graduating from High School
Under existing law, each high school student must satisfactorily complete a civics course as a condition of high school graduation. In connection with this requirement, the bill requires each student who is enrolled in ninth grade during or after the 2016-17 school year to correctly answer, before graduating from high school, at least 60 questions from the civics portion of the naturalization test (test) used by the United States citizenship and immigration services. The school district, charter school, or school operated by a board of cooperative services (local education provider) that enrolls the student may allow the student to take the test on multiple occasions while enrolled in ninth through twelfth grade and, if necessary, to repeat the test until the student correctly answers at least 60 questions. Once the student correctly answers 60 questions, the local education provider will note the accomplishment on the student’s transcript. A student who has a disability is excused from this requirement, except to the extent it may be required in the student’s individualized education program. The superintendent or principal of a local education provider may waive the requirement for a student who meets all of the other graduation requirements and demonstrates the existence of extraordinary circumstances that justify the waiver. Each local education provider has complete flexibility in determining the manner of delivering the test and may incorporate the test into its existing curriculum. A local education provider shall not use the results of the test in measuring educator effectiveness.

SB 16-150 – Marriages By Individuals In Civil Unions
The bill addresses issues that have arisen in Colorado regarding marriages by individuals who are in a civil union or who entered or who will enter into a civil union after the passage of the bill. The bill amends the statute on prohibited marriages to disallow a marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier civil union of one of the parties, except a currently valid civil union between the same two parties. The executive director of the Department of Public Health and Environment is directed to revise the marriage license application to include questions regarding prior civil unions. The bill states that the “Colorado Civil Union Act” (act) does not affect a marriage legally entered into in another jurisdiction between two individuals who are the same sex. The bill states that a civil union license and a civil union certificate do not constitute evidence of the parties’ intent to create a common law marriage. Two parties who have entered into a civil union may subsequently enter into a legally recognized marriage with each other by obtaining a marriage license from a county clerk and recorder in the state and by having the marriage solemnized and registered as a marriage with a county clerk and recorder. The bill states that the effect of marrying in that circumstance is to merge the civil union into a marriage by operation of law. A separate dissolution of a civil union is not required when a civil union is merged into a marriage by operation of law. If one or both of the parties to the marriage subsequently desire to dissolve the marriage, legally separate, or have the marriage declared invalid, one or both of the parties must file proceedings in accordance with the procedures specified in the “Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act.” Any dissolution, legal separation, or declaration of invalidity of the marriage must be in accordance with the “Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act.” If a civil union is merged into a marriage by operation of law, any calculation of the duration of the marriage includes the time period during which the parties were in a civil union. The criminal statute on bigamy is amended, effective July 1, 2016, to include a person who, while married, marries, enters into a civil union, or cohabits in the state with another person not his or her spouse and to include a person who, while still legally in a civil union, marries, enters into a civil union, or cohabits in the state with another person not his or her civil union partner. mmittees of the Bar Association.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Equitable Denial of Apportionment of Estate Taxes Improper

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Estate of Petteys v. Farmers State Bank of Brush on Thursday, March 10, 2016.

Robert Petteys established a trust for his children and surviving descendants. He also executed a will providing that all death taxes shall be apportioned among the recipients of his estate as provided by Colorado law. He died in 2009, leaving a substantial estate. The estate’s personal representative paid the federal estate taxes from the estate’s liquid assets, then filed an action in district court against the trust, seeking reimbursement for the taxes attributable to the value of the property Petteys contributed to the trust that was included in the gross estate.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The estate argued it was entitled to reimbursement under the terms of Petteys’ will and Colorado’s apportionment statute. The trustee argued that federal estate tax controls and does not allow reimbursement in this case, alternatively urging the court to deny reimbursement on equitable grounds and also arguing the will provision was unenforceable as an invalid revocation of the trust.

The district court agreed with the estate that Colorado law applied, ruling the estate was presumptively entitled to reimbursement under Colorado’s apportionment statute but material issues of fact precluded summary judgment. After a bench trial, the district court denied apportionment on equitable grounds and entered judgment for the trustee. The district court also sua sponte ruled that Colorado’s apportionment statute was unconstitutional as applied to the trust. The estate appealed, and the trustee cross-appealed the district court’s determination that Colorado law governs apportionment of estate taxes.

The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with the estate that Colorado’s apportionment statute requires apportionment of the estate taxes to the trust and the district court erred in denying apportionment on equitable grounds, as well as finding the apportionment statute would be unconstitutional as applied to the trust. The court of appeals found no exception to Colorado’s apportionment statute that would allow equitable consideration of tax liabilities. The court also held that although the trust beneficiaries had vested rights to receive income from the trust, they did not have a right to receive income free from taxation.

The court of appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the estate.

e-Legislative Report: February 22, 2016

Welcome e-leg report readers to this week’s installment of the world under the Gold Dome. As always, we welcome your feedback, thoughts, comments and questions. This news report is designed to keep you up-to-date on activities at the capitol that are of interest to the bar association and to lawyers across practice areas.

Feel free to drop me a line on how we are doing or raise an issue on a piece of legislation. Contact me at jschupbach@cobar.org.

CBA Legislative Policy Committee

For followers who are new to CBA legislative activity, the Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) is the CBA’s legislative policy making arm during the legislative session. The LPC meets weekly during the legislative session to determine CBA positions from requests from the various sections and committees of the Bar Association. Members are welcome to attend the meetings; please RSVP if you are interested.

LPC Meeting Update

The following bills were discussed by the LPC on 2.19.16. Other bills of interest from that agenda are tracked and updated below.

HB 16-1191 Bill Of Rights For Persons Who Are Homeless
The bill creates the “Colorado Right to Rest Act,” which establishes basic rights for persons experiencing homelessness, including, but not limited to, the right to use and move freely in public spaces without discrimination, to rest in public spaces without discrimination, to eat or accept food in any public space where food is not prohibited, to occupy a legally parked vehicle, and to have a reasonable expectation of privacy of one’s property. The bill does not create an obligation for a provider of services for persons experiencing homelessness to provide shelter or services when none are available.
The LPC considered this bill at the request of the Civil Rights Committee, but took no position on the bill.

HB 16-1110 Parent’s Bill Of Rights
The bill establishes a liberty interest and fundamental right for parents in the care, custody, and control of a parent’s child, restricting governmental entities from infringing on such interests and rights without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest that cannot be accomplished through less restrictive means.
The LPC voted to oppose this bill because it reverses the long-standing policy position of the Colorado Judicial system to act in the best interest of the child.

HB 16-1235 Commissions Evaluating State Judicial Performance
The bill makes revisions to various functions of the state commission on judicial performance (state commission) and the district commissions on judicial performance (district commission), referred to collectively as the “commissions.” The revisions include: changing the makeup of the state commission to include one representative from each judicial district to ensure representation from the entire state; establishing guidelines for when attorneys and nonattorneys are appointed to the state commission by a district commission; not allowing the chief justice to select individuals for the state commission, which reviews the chief justice’s performance; mandating annual public meetings at which the public is invited to attend and confidentially comment on justices and judges; requiring the state commission to obtain and verify required financial disclosures, criminal histories, and driving histories for each justice or judge reviewed by the commissions; requiring judicial evaluations to take place every two years and to be made public at that time; mandating that the commissions make a “do not retain” recommendation when a majority of commissioners determine that it is more probable than not that a justice or judge knowingly committed a dishonest act during the performance of judicial duties, knowingly made inaccurate or insufficient public financial disclosures, or was improperly influenced by a conflict of interest in performing a judicial act; and mandating that the commissions make a “do not retain” recommendation when two-thirds of the attorneys who complete a questionnaire or survey for the commission recommend that the justice or judge not be retained. The bill is funded from any fees and cost recoveries for electronic filings, network access and searches of court databases, electronic searches of court records, and any other information technology services performed pursuant to statute.
The LPC voted to oppose this bill based on the consideration that this is a longstanding and fundamental change that is not in the best interest of the administration of justice in Colorado.

SB 16-085 Uniform Trust Decanting Act
Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws. “Decanting” is a term used to describe the distribution of assets from one trust into a second trust. The bill enacts the “Colorado Uniform Trust Decanting Act” (Act), which allows a trustee to reform an irrevocable trust document within reasonable limits that ensure the trust will achieve the settlor’s original intent. The Act prevents decanting when it would defeat a charitable or tax-related purpose of the settlor.
The LPC voted to support this Uniform Bill as modified to meet the considerations of Family Law, Trust & Estate and Elder Law sections.

Updates regarding bills the CBA is currently focused on:

SB 16-013 Clean-up Office Of The Child Protection Ombudsman
Senator Newell has pulled the language of concern from the bill.  SB 13 was passed out of committee on Monday.

SB 16-043 Student Loans Consumer Protections
The CBA testified in favor of this bill, at the request of the Colorado Young Lawyers Division. The bill failed to pass out of committee.

SB 16-047 No Detention For Juveniles Who Are Truant
The CBA testified that while detention for truancy is not something the Bar supports as policy, the bill was fundamentally flawed by prohibiting the judicial branch from effecting its own valid orders. Case law from Colorado in the 1990s is directly on point to the Bar’s constitutional concerns.

SB 16-084 Uniform Substitute Health Care Decision-making Documents
The Bar remains neutral on this bill, while the Health Law Section has some concerns and opposition to the language. The bill was heard in committee, but was not voted on. We are waiting for the Senate to take action on the bill.

SB 16-071 Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act 2015
The CBA has not taken a position on this bill. The Department of Regulatory Affairs has some outstanding concerns that they are addressing with the Uniform Law Commission.

SB 16-088 Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access To Digital Asset
This bill, as amended to accommodate both the Trust & Estate and Business Law Sections, is moving through the legislature as anticipated.

SB 16-115 Electronic Recording Technology Board
The bill, which is supported by the Bar and the Real Estate Section, has passed its first two committee hearings and now heads to Senate Appropriations.

HB 16-1051 Forms To Transfer Vehicle Ownership Upon Death
The CBA is working with the sponsors on some amendments for this bill. The bill is now in its second chamber.

HB 16-1078 Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection
The CBA is working on this bill, which was amended and is now headed to appropriations in the House.

New Bills of Interest

These are a few new bills recently introduced. They have been sent to CBA sections for review and comment. If you have any questions about these or any other bills, please drop me a line. I’m happy to help you however I can.

HB 16-1270 Security Interest Owner’s Interest In Business Entity
Under current law, the “Uniform Commercial Code” (Code) invalidates contractual limits on the transferability of some assets that can be subject to a security interest. In 2006, the “Colorado Corporations and Associations Act” (Act) was amended to clearly and broadly exempt an owner’s interest in a business entity from these Code provisions to effectuate the “pick your partner” principle that allows small businesses to control their ownership. Section 3 of the bill narrows the exemption in the Act to that necessary for “pick your partner,” and sections 1 and 2 codify this narrowed exemption in the Code.

HB 16-1275 Taxation Of Corporate Income Sheltered In Tax Haven
The bill pertains to an affiliated group of corporations filing a combined report. In a combined report filing, the tax is based on a percentage of the entire taxable income of all of the includable corporations, but the tax is assessed only against the corporation or corporations doing business in Colorado. Including more affiliated corporations in the combined report may result in an increase in income subject to tax. There are jurisdictions located outside of the United States with no tax or very low rates of taxation, strict bank secrecy provisions, a lack of transparency in the operation of their tax system, and a lack of effective exchange of information with other countries. There are several common legal strategies for sheltering corporate income in such jurisdictions, often called “tax havens.” Notwithstanding a current requirement in state law that those corporations with 80% or more of their property and payroll assigned to locations outside of the United States be excluded from a combined report, the bill makes a corporation that is incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of tax avoidance an includable C corporation for purposes of the combined report. The bill defines a corporation incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of tax avoidance to mean any C corporation that is incorporated in a jurisdiction that has no or nominal effective tax on the relevant income and that meets one or more of five factors listed in the bill, unless it is proven to the satisfaction of the executive director of the department of revenue that such corporation is incorporated in that jurisdiction for a legitimate business purpose. The bill requires the state controller to credit a specified amount per fiscal year to the state education fund to be used to help fund public school education. The bill requires the secretary of state to submit a ballot question, to be treated as a proposition, at the statewide election to be held in November 2016 asking the voters to: increase taxes annually by the taxation of a corporation’s state income that is sheltered in a foreign jurisdiction for the purpose of tax avoidance; provide that the resulting tax revenue be used to help fund elementary and secondary public school education; and allow an estimate of the resulting tax revenue to be collected and spent notwithstanding any limitations in section 20 of article X of the state constitution (TABOR).

SB 16-131 Overseeing Fiduciaries’ Management Of Assets
The bill clarifies statutory language concerning the removal of a fiduciary to ensure that a fiduciary’s authority is suspended as soon as a petition to remove the fiduciary is filed. The bill adds a provision to the conservatorship statutes stating that an adult ward or protected person has a right to be represented by a lawyer of their choosing unless the trial court finds that the person lacks sufficient capacity to provide informed consent for representation by a lawyer. The bill states that after a fiduciary receives notice of proceedings for his, her, or its removal, the fiduciary shall not pay compensation or attorney fees and costs from the estate without an order of the court.

SB 16-133 Transfer Of Property Rights At Death
Under current law, a certificate of death, a verification of death document, or a certified copy thereof, of a person who is a joint tenant may be placed of record with the county clerk and recorder of the county in which the real property affected by the joint tenancy is located, together with a supplementary affidavit. The bill removes the requirement that the person who swears to and affirms the supplementary affidavit have no record interest in the real property. The bill includes inherited individual retirement accounts and inherited Roth individual retirement accounts as property exempt from levy and sale under writ of attachment or writ of execution. The bill, which amends provisions concerning determination-of-heirship proceedings, clarifies the definition of “interested person,” so that anyone affected by the ownership of property may commence a proceeding; describes when an unprobated will may be used as part of a proceeding; clarifies notice requirements; and ensures that a judgment and decree will convey legal title as opposed to equitable title. The bill enacts portions of section 5 of the “Uniform Power of Appointment Act,” with amendments.

e-Legislative Report: February 16, 2016

Welcome e-leg report readers to this week’s installment of the world under the Gold Dome. As always, we welcome your feedback, thoughts, comments and questions. This news report is designed to keep you up to date on activities at the capitol that are of interest to the bar association and to lawyers across practice areas.

Feel free to drop me a line on how we are doing or raise an issue on a piece of legislation. Contact me at jschupbach@cobar.org.

CBA Legislative Policy Committee

For followers who are new to CBA legislative activity, the Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) is the CBA’s legislative policy making arm during the legislative session. The LPC meets weekly during the legislative session to determine CBA positions from requests from the various sections and committees of the Bar Association. Members are welcome to attend the meetings; please RSVP if you are interested.

LPC Meeting Update

The following bills were discussed by the LPC. Other bills of interest from that agenda are tracked and updated below.

HB 16-1078 Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection
The bill prohibits a county, municipality, or local education provider from imposing any disciplinary action against an employee on account of the employee’s statements to any person about the local government that the employee reasonably believes to show: a violation of a state or federal law, a local ordinance or resolution, or a local education provider policy; a waste or misuse of public funds; fraud; an abuse of authority; mismanagement; or a danger to the health or safety of students, employees, or the public. The bill permits an employee to file a written complaint with the office of administrative courts, for referral to an administrative law judge, alleging that a local government has imposed disciplinary action that violates this prohibition and seeking injunctive relief and damages. Employees who lose the administrative hearing may file a civil action in district court. The employee protection does not apply if the disclosure was false or made with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity thereof, or if it was of a protected public record or confidential information that was not reasonably necessary to show one or more of the identified circumstances. Administrative law judges are given jurisdiction to hear, determine, and make findings and awards on all these whistleblower cases. The director of the office of administrative courts is required to establish rules to govern these proceedings and hearings.
The LPC voted on the recommendation and request of the Government Counsel and Labor & Employment Law sections to oppose the bill.

HB 16-1154 Employer Definition Clarify Franchisee Status
The bill clarifies that the definition of “employer” only includes a person who possesses authority to control an employee’s terms and conditions of employment and actually exercises that authority directly. The bill specifies that a franchisor is not considered an employer of a franchisee’s employees unless a court finds that a franchisor exercises a type or degree of control over the franchisee or the franchisee’s employees not customarily exercised by a franchisor for the purpose of protecting the franchisor’s trademarks and brand.
The LPC voted to support the bill on the recommendation and presentation of the Franchise subsection of Business Law section.

HB 16-1232 Sunset DOR Private Letter Ruling & General Information Letter
Currently, the executive director of the department of revenue (department), or the executive director’s designee, is charged with issuing, on written request from a taxpayer, private letter rulings (binding determinations regarding the tax consequences of a proposed or completed transaction), and Information letters (nonbinding statements providing general information regarding any tax administered by the department). This duty is currently scheduled to sunset on September 1, 2016. The bill continues the requirement of the department to issue these letters until September 1, 2023. The bill also specifies that the department must track the total state full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel positions necessary and the hours dedicated by each FTE for the issuance, declination, modification, or revocation of all information letters or private letter rulings.
The LPC voted to support the bill and testify in favor of continuing the practice. The bill will be heard in committee next week.

SB 16-115 Electronic Recording Technology Board
The bill creates the electronic recording technology board (board) in the department of state. The board, which is authorized to issue revenue bonds, is established as an enterprise. So long as it constitutes an enterprise, the board is not subject to any provisions of section 20 of article X of the state constitution. The board sunsets in 6 years, but prior to that sunset, it is subject to a sunset review. The board is authorized to impose a surcharge of up to $2 on all documents that a clerk and recorder receives for recording or filing. If imposed, counties are required to collect the surcharge on behalf of the board and transmit it to the state treasurer for deposit in the newly created electronic recording technology fund (fund). The board is required to: develop a strategic plan incorporating the core goals of security, accuracy, sequencing, online public access, standardization, and preservation of public records; determine functionality standards for an electronic filing system that support the core goals; issue a request for proposal for electronic filing system equipment and software that will be available to counties on an optional basis; develop best practices for an electronic filing system; provide training to clerks and recorders related to electronic filing systems; and make grants to counties to establish, maintain, improve, or replace electronic filing systems for documents that are recorded with a clerk and recorder. In awarding grants, the board is required to give priority for grants to counties that do not have sufficient revenue from the surcharge proceeds to maintain their existing electronic filing systems. The money in the fund is continuously appropriated to the board to be used for these purposes. The bill repeals the secretary of state’s powers to ensure uniformity related to electronic filing systems, which powers become the board’s responsibility, and requires the department of state to prepare an annual report that is published online about the grants that the board made in the prior fiscal year. The bill also extends the one-dollar surcharge that a county clerk and recorder is currently required to collect and use for the county’s core or electronic filing system for 9.5 years. The definition of “electronic filing system” is expanded to include elements of the “core filing system,” which term is repealed.
The LPC voted on the recommendation of the Real Estate Section, which has been involved with the creation and drafting of the bill, to support the bill and testify in favor of its passage in committee.

SB 16-043 Student Loans Consumer Protections
The bill prohibits a private educational lender, as defined in the bill, from offering gifts to a covered educational institution, as defined in the bill, including public and private institutions of higher education, in exchange for any advantage or consideration related to loan activities or from engaging in revenue sharing. Further, the bill prohibits persons employed at covered educational institutions from receiving anything of  value from private educational lenders. The bill makes it unlawful for a private educational lender to impose a fee or penalty on a borrower for early repayment or prepayment of a private education loan and requires a lender to disclose any agreements made with a card issuer or creditor for purposes of marketing a credit card. The bill requires private educational lenders to disclose information to a potential borrower or borrower both at the time of application for a private education loan and at the time of consummation of the loan. The required disclosures are described in the bill and include, among other disclosures, the interest rate for the loan and adjustments to the rate, potential finance charges and penalties, payment options, an estimate of the total amount for repayment at the interest rate, the possibility of qualifying for federal loans, the terms and conditions of the loan, and that the borrower may cancel the loan, without penalty, within 3 business days after the date on which the loan is consummated.
The LPC voted to support this bill and to authorize the Juvenile Law section to testify in its favor in committee. This bill would help graduating lawyers, and future graduates, with the debt burden of school.

SB 16-084 Uniform Substitute Health Care Decision-making Documents
Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws. The bill adopts, with amendments, the “Uniform Recognition of Substitute Health Care Decision-making Documents Act” as Colorado law. The bill establishes the circumstances under which a substitute health care decision-making document (document) is valid in this state. A person may assume in good faith that a document is genuine, valid, and still in effect and that the decision-maker’s authority is genuine, valid, and still in effect. A person who is asked to accept a document shall do so within a reasonable amount of time. The person may not require an additional or different form of document for authority granted in the document presented. A person who refuses to accept a document is subject to a court order mandating acceptance of the document and liability for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in an action or proceeding that mandates acceptance of the document. A person is not required to accept a document under certain described conditions.
The LPC voted to remain neutral on the bill, while authorizing the Health Law section to testify as to the specific concerns it raised in the context of medical practices.

SB 16-047 No Detention For Juveniles Who Are Truant
The bill prohibits a juvenile detention facility from receiving or providing care for a juvenile who violates a court order to attend school unless the juvenile is also adjudicated for a delinquent act and remains under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for committing the delinquent act.
The LPC is concerned that the bill, by precluding a court from enforcing its own orders, is likely unconstitutional, and does not allow the judicial branch to complete the requirements and reports that were created by SB 15-184.

SB 16-103 Canadian Domestic Violence Protection Order Enforcement
Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws. The bill enacts the “Uniform Recognition and Enforcement of Canadian Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act” as recommended by the national conference of commissioners on uniform state laws. The bill allows a peace officer to enforce a Canadian domestic violence protection order. The bill allows a court to enter an order enforcing or refusing to enforce a Canadian domestic violence protection order. The bill provides immunity for a person who enforces a Canadian domestic violence protection order.
The LPC voted to support this bill on the recommendation of the Family Law section.

Updates regarding bills the CBA is currently focused on:

HB 16-1145 Documentary Fee For Residential Real Property
The CBA was able to propose an amendment to the bill that moved us to “neutral” on this bill. It will be heard in committee this week.

SB 16-013 Clean-up Office Of The Child Protection Ombudsman
This sponsor has agreed to remove the language that the CBA was concerned about. With this amendment, the CBA can officially monitor the bill going forward.

SB 16-071 Revised Uniform Athlete Agents Act 2015
The LPC asked that this bill be reviewed for comment by the Lawyers Professional Liability Committee. Once that review is complete, the LPC will revisit the act.

SB 16-088 Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access To Digital Asset Act
The CBA voted to support the bill as written and is monitoring the bill for any additional amendments that may impact it.

New Bills of Interest

These are a few new bills recently introduced. They have been sent to CBA sections for review and comment. If you have any questions about these or any other bills, please drop me a line. I’m happy to help you however I can.

SB 16-120 Review By Medicaid Client For Billing Fraud
The bill requires the department of health care policy and financing (department), by a certain date, to develop and implement an explanation of benefits for medicaid recipients. The purpose of the explanation of benefits is to inform a medicaid client of a claim for reimbursement made for services provided to the client or on his or her behalf, so that the client may discover and report administrative or provider errors or fraudulent claims for reimbursement. The bill specifies certain information that must be included in the explanation of benefits. Specifically, the explanation of benefits must include information regarding at least one method for a medicaid client to report errors in the explanation of benefits. The department shall work with medicaid clients and medicaid advocates to develop an explanation of benefits and educational materials that are understandable to medicaid clients. The explanation of benefits must be sent to clients not less than bimonthly, and the department shall determine the most cost-effective means for producing and distributing the explanation of benefits, which means may include e-mail or distribution with existing communications to clients.

HB 16-1258 Court Clerks Posting Of Service
Under current law, if a respondent in a domestic relations action cannot be personally served and is served by publication, the clerk of the court is required to post a copy of the process on a bulletin board in his or her office for 35 days after the date of publication. The bill gives the clerk the option of posting the service online on the court’s website rather than on a bulletin board.

HB 16-1261 Retail Marijuana Sunset
Sunset Process—House Finance Committee. The bill implements the following recommendations from the sunset report for the retail marijuana program: extending the retail marijuana code until September 1, 2019; stating that regulation of labeling, packaging, and testing is a matter of statewide concern; and repealing the following provisions from the retail marijuana code: the requirement that a licensee post a surety bond as condition of licensure; the requirement that the executive director deny a license based on a previous denial at the same location; the proscription on the placement and sale of marijuana-themed magazines; and the authority to promulgate rules prohibiting misrepresentation and unfair practices. The bill creates two new retail marijuana licenses, a retail marijuana transport license and a retail marijuana operator license, and gives the state licensing authority rulemaking authority over those licenses. The bill conforms language in the retail marijuana code to language in the medical marijuana code related to mandatory testing, the confidentiality of licensee information, and limited access areas.

e-Legislative Report: 2/3/2016

Editor’s Note: Yesterday, we erroneously published an e-Legislative Report from 2015. The current e-Legislative Report is below. We apologize for the confusion.

e-Legislative Report

Hello loyal e-leg report readers, here is this week’s installment of the world under the Gold Dome; as always, we welcome your feedback, thoughts, comments and questions.  This news report is designed to keep you up to date on the activity of interest to the bar, and to lawyers across practice areas that are happening at the Capitol.

Things move pretty fast this time of year, and we’re off to a busy start – the legislature has released over 300 bills for consideration, committees are meeting and negotiations and amendments are happening hundreds of times a day.  The capitol is humming for sure!

Feel free to drop me a line on how we are doing or raise an issue on a piece of legislation. Contact me at jschupbach@cobar.org

CBA Legislative Policy Committee

For followers who are new to CBA legislative activity, the Legislative Policy Committee (“LPC”) is the CBA’s legislative policy making arm during the legislative session. The LPC meets weekly during the legislative session to determine CBA positions from requests from the various sections and committees of the Bar Association.  Members are welcome to attend the meetings – please RSVP if you are interested.

LPC Meeting held Friday, January 29, 2016

The following bills were discussed at the LPC last week.  Other bills of interest from that agenda are tracked and updated below.

SB 16-013 Concerning Statutory Changes Related to the Office of the Child Protection

The bill addresses several items in the statutes relating to the office of the child protection ombudsman (office), including:

Clarifying that the child protection ombudsman board’s (board) duties are advisory only;  Shifting the responsibility for accountability in policies and procedures from the board to the office; Clarifying that the ombudsman cannot be subpoenaed by independent parties to testify in personal custody proceedings; and Removing the statutory requirement for an audit of the office by the office of the state auditor but leaving it at the discretion of the legislative audit committee to request such an audit at a future date.

The CBA – through the Legislative Policy Committee is seeking to amend this bill to restore the ability to subpoena the Ombudsman.  This is an important part of the process, and a vital step to access to data that might be otherwise unavailable.

HB 16-1085 Concerning Simplifying the Process for Returning to a Proper Name after Decree of Dissolution

Under current law, a party to a divorce or legal separation may request in the petition that his or her prior name be restored as part of the decree of dissolution or legal separation. This process to restore a prior name does not involve a background check or publication of the name. However, if the party does not change his or her name at the time the decree of dissolution or legal separation is entered, he or she must follow the procedures for a name change under civil law that include a fingerprint-based background check and publication of the name.

Subject to certain conditions, the bill permits a party to a dissolution or legal separation action to request the restoration of his or her prior full name by filing a motion in the court that granted the divorce or legal separation. The ex-parte motion does not require notice to the other party to the divorce or legal separation. The bill includes the requirements for filing the motion and the conditions under which the court must grant the motion.
The bill also clarifies that the provisions of the adult name change statute do not apply to a party to a dissolution or legal separation action who requests restoration of a prior name pursuant to the new statute.

The CBA supports this legislation. We are working with the sponsor with respect to an amendment that would require notice be given to the other party in the dissolution.

Bills that the LPC is monitoring, watching or working on can be found at this link:

http://www.statebillinfo.com/sbi/index.cfm?fuseaction=Public.Dossier&id=21762&pk=996

@ the Capitol – These are the bills we are focused on:

HB 16-1051 Forms To Transfer Vehicle Ownership Upon Death

On and after the effective date of the bill, the department of revenue (department) shall make available a beneficiary designation form (form) that allows the owner or joint owners of a vehicle to arrange to transfer ownership of the vehicle to a named beneficiary upon the death of the owner or upon the death of all joint owners of the vehicle. Upon the death of the owner or of the last surviving joint owner, the beneficiary may present the form to the department and request a new title of ownership of the vehicle in the beneficiary’s name. The request must be accompanied by: Proof of the death of the vehicle’s owner or proof of the death of the last surviving joint owner of the vehicle; and the statutory fee for an application for a certificate of title.

Upon the presentation of a properly executed and notarized form and the accompanying documents and fee, the department, subject to any security interest, shall issue a new certificate of title to the beneficiary.

The transfer of ownership of a vehicle via a form is not considered testamentary and is not subject to the provisions of the “Colorado Probate Code”.
The CBA is working with the sponsor and other attorneys to ensure that the intent of the bill is harmonized with existing laws, and that it will work well once enacted into law.

HB 16-1077 Recreate Statutory Revisions Committee

The statutory revision committee created in 1977 and repealed in 1985, was a standing body tasked with making an ongoing investigation into statutory defects and anachronisms. The bill recreates the committee.  The recreated committee is comprised of 8 members, with the majority and minority party leaders of each chamber of the general assembly appointing 2 members of those bodies. The committee is staffed by the office of legislative legal services, and is charged with: Making an ongoing examination of the common law and statutes of the state and current judicial decisions for the purpose of discovering defects and anachronisms in the law and recommending needed reforms; Receiving, soliciting, and considering proposed changes in the law from legal organizations, public officials, lawyers, and the public generally as to defects and anachronisms in the law; Recommending legislation, from time to time, to effect such changes in the law as it deems necessary in order to modify or eliminate antiquated, redundant, or contradictory laws; and Reporting its findings and recommendations from time to time to the committee on legal services and annually to the general assembly.

The CBA is working with the Sponsors to offer amendments to shape the scope and membership of this committee.  We believe that the members and expertise of the Bar Association can provide value to the committee upon enactment, and into the future, should the bill pass.

HB 16-1145 Documentary Fee For Residential Real Property

Currently, a person filing a real property conveyance document with a county clerk and recorder must pay a documentary fee if the consideration for the conveyance is more than $500. The amount of the fee is based on the consideration paid, which is the total sales price to the purchaser, unless there is evidence of a separate consideration paid for personal property.

For purposes of the documentary fee, the bill changes the determination of the consideration paid for the grant or conveyance of residential real property as follows: Eliminates any reduction for a separate consideration paid for personal property from the total sales price; Generally requires the consideration amount listed on the grant or conveyance document to be used to determine the documentary fee; and If there is no consideration amount or the amount listed on the grant or conveyance document is $500 or less, and there is a related declaration filed, then the total sales price listed on the declaration is used to determine the documentary fee.  The bill also specifies that, unless indicated as commercial or industrial real property at the time of recording, a grant or conveyance is deemed to be of residential real property for the purpose of determining the documentary fee.

The CBA has significant concerns about this bill and the effects it will have upon real property transactions across the state.  We have been working with the stakeholders and sponsors to try and improve the bill, and to try and find a solution to the documentary fee challenges, but without harming other important aspects of property transactions.

SB 16-026 Personal Rights Of Protected Persons

A guardian or conservator shall not restrict a protected person’s right of communication, visitation, or interaction with other persons, including the right to receive visitors, telephone calls, or personal mail, unless such restrictions are authorized by a court order.  A court may issue an order restricting the communications, visitations, or interactions that a person may have with a protected person upon a showing of good cause by a guardian or conservator. In determining whether to issue such an order, the court shall consider certain factors.  An interested person, including the protected person, who reasonably believes that a guardian or conservator has violated a court order or abused his or her discretion in restricting a protected person’s right of communication, visitation, or interaction with other persons may move the court to: Require the guardian or conservator to grant a person access to the protected person; Restrict, or further restrict, a person’s access to the protected person; Modify the guardian or conservator’s duties; or Remove the guardian or conservator.
A guardian or conservator who knowingly isolates a protected person in violation of law or a court order is subject to removal. With certain exceptions, a guardian or conservator shall promptly notify a protected person’s closest known family members and any person designated by the protected person to be notified in the event that the protected person: Changes his or her residence; Resides at a location other than the protected person’s residence for more than 7 days; Is admitted to a medical facility for acute care or
emergency care; or Dies.

The CBA supports the intent and purpose of this legislation.  We offered testimony that outlined our belief that this was a significant bill, outlined some concerns we had for how the bill might not work well with existing statute, and reaffirmed our commitment to continuing our work with the sponsor.

New Bills of Interest

These are a few of the new bills.  They have been sent to our Sections for review and comment.  If you have any questions about these – or any other bills at the legislature, please drop me a line and I’m happy to help you however I can.

HB 16-1115 Prohibition of Sealing Municipal Domestic Violence Convictions

Under current law, conviction records related to municipal offenses are eligible for record sealing. The bill prohibits sealing a municipal assault or battery conviction or any other municipal conviction, if the conviction involves the underlying factual basis of domestic violence.

HB 16-1117 Electronic Recording for Certain Custodial Interrogation

The bill requires all law enforcement agencies to have audio-visual recording equipment available and policies and procedures in place for preserving custodial interrogations by January 1, 2017. A peace officer must record custodial interrogations occurring in a permanent detention facility if the peace officer is investigating a class 1 or 2 felony or a felony sexual assault. A peace officer does not have to record the interrogation if: the defendant requests that the interrogation not be recorded and the defendant’s request is preserved by electronic recording or in writing; The recording equipment fails; The recording equipment is unavailable, either through damage or extraordinary circumstances; Exigent circumstances related to public safety prevent recording; or The interrogation takes place outside of Colorado.

The court may admit evidence from a custodial interrogation that is not recorded. When offering evidence from an unrecorded interrogation, if the prosecution shows by a preponderance of the evidence that one of the exceptions apply or that the evidence is offered as rebuttal or impeachment evidence, the court may admit the evidence without a cautionary instruction. If the prosecution does not meet that burden, the court shall issue a cautionary instruction to the jury after admitting the evidence.

HB 16-1154 Employer Definition Clarify Franchisee Status

The bill clarifies that the definition of “employer” only includes a person that possesses authority to control an employee’s terms and conditions of employment and actually exercises that authority directly. The bill specifies that a franchisor is not considered an employer of a franchisee’s employees unless a court finds that a franchisor exercises a type or degree of control over the franchisee or the franchisee’s employees not customarily exercised by a franchisor for the purpose of protecting the franchisor’s trademarks and brand.