June 15, 2019

Archives for August 11, 2011

State Judicial Issues Many New and Revised Probate Forms

The Colorado State Judicial Branch has issued a large number of revised and new probate forms, including those regarding appointments of Guardians, Personal Representatives, and Special Administrators, Formal and Informal Probates, and Collection of Personal Property. Practitioners should begin using the new forms immediately.

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

Probate

  • JDF 998 – “Instructions for Completing Affidavit for the Collection of Personal Property” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 824 – “Petition for Appointment of Guardian for Minor” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 841 – “Petition for Appointment of Guardian for Adult” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 857 – “Petition for Appointment of Co-Guardian or Successor Guardian” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 879 – “Petition for Appointment of Co-Conservator or Successor Conservator” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 910 – “Application for Informal Probate of Will and Informal Appointment of Personal Representative” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 916 – “Application for Informal Appointment of Personal Representative” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 920 – “Petition for Formal Probate of Will and Formal Appointment of Personal Representative” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 922 – “Petition for Adjudication of Intestacy and Formal Appointment of Personal Representative” (8/11)
  • JDF 924 – “Application for Informal Appointment of Special Administrator” (8/11)
  • JDF 926 – “Petition for Formal Appointment of Special Administrator” (8/11)
  • JDF 951 – “Application for Informal Appointment of Successor Personal Representative” (8/11)
  • JDF 999 – “Collection of Personal Property by Affidavit” (revised 8/11)

State Judicial Issues Revised Forms for Appeals Including Dependency and Neglect

The Colorado State Judicial Branch has issued several revised forms for appeals, including those for dependency and neglect cases. Practitioners should begin using the new forms immediately.

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

Appeals

  • Form 6 – “Court of Appeals Certificate of Compliance” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 545 – “Notice of Appeal (Cross-Appeal) & Designation of Record” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 546 – “Certificate of Diligent Search” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 547 – “Supplemental Designation of Record” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 548 – “Petition on Appeal” (revised 8/11)
  • JDF 549 – “Response to Petition on Appeal (Cross-Appeal)” (revised 8/11)

Jefferson County to Graduate Largest Class Yet from its Recovery Court

The Jefferson County Recovery Court marks a milestone on Friday, August 12, 2011 when three participants are scheduled to graduate from the program, its largest graduation yet since beginning two years ago.

Four classes have graduated so far from the Recovery Court, which is essentially a Drug Court (similar to adult drug courts found in about twenty other counties around the state) but with the addition of a restorative justice component. Participants must complete an eighteen-month intensive-treatment program that includes probation supervision, in-court review hearings, substantial judicial oversight, and full accountability by the Recovery Court participant.

Unlike many other drug court programs, however, the Jefferson County Recovery Court requires each participant to create a restorative justice program as part of his or her treatment plan. Participants design and carry out community-service projects intended to repair some of the harm they have caused through their drug use and previous criminal behavior.

Friday’s graduates developed and implemented the following court-approved projects:

  • Creation of a menu and assistance with food preparation plans and service at the Denver Rescue Mission
  • Organization of a food-donation program involving a Honey Baked Ham store to benefit local shelters
  • Volunteer work at the Aspen Center for Women.

The graduation hearing will be held at the Jefferson County Combined Courts, 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Courtroom 5C, beginning at noon.

The Jefferson County Recovery Court is one of more than sixty problem-solving courts operating in seventeen of Colorado’s twenty-two judicial districts. Colorado’s problem-solving courts include adult and juvenile drug courts, family/dependency and neglect drug courts, DUI courts, adult and juvenile mental health courts, a veteran trauma court, and truancy courts.

Click here to read the full press release from State Judicial.

Timothy Gordon: Including Accrued Interest in Lien Statement Does Not Render it Void as Excessive

Editor’s Note: The Colorado Court of Appeals’ opinion in Honnen Equipment Co. v. Never Summer Backhoe Service, Inc. can be read here.

In Honnen Equipment Company, Inc. v. Never Summer Backhoe Service, Inc. (Colo. App. July 7, 2011), a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the inclusion of interest in a lien statement does not render the lien void as an excessive lien.  In doing so, the Court had to distinguish prior Supreme Court precedent holding that a mechanics’ lien may not include late charges.

Generally, the Colorado mechanics’ lien statute provides that a lien claimant is entitled to a lien in the amount of the value of the services rendered or labor performed and materials furnished for the improvement of real property.  C.R.S. § 38-22-101(1).  When recording a mechanics’ lien, one must be careful not to overstate the amount.  The reason is that anyone who knowingly records an overstated lien not only forfeits their lien rights but also can be liable to the owner for costs and fees.  C.R.S. § 38-22-128.

In Honnen Equipment Co., the lien claimant included accrued interest in its mechanics’ lien.  The owner argued that interest may not be included in a lien because interest does not represent the value of the work performed to benefit the property.  Therefore, according to the owner, the inclusion of accrued interest in a lien statement renders it excessive and therefore invalid pursuant to C.R.S. § 38-22-128.

The Court of Appeals disagreed.  In its holding, the Court of Appeals distinguished the Colorado Supreme Court’s holding in Independent Trust Corp. v. Stan Miller, Inc., 796 P.2d 483 (Colo. 1990).  In Independent Trust Corp., the Supreme Court held that late charges recoverable by contract were not lienable.  While the Court of Appeals acknowledge that interest, like late charges, does not represent the value of the work performed, the Court of Appeals held that interest is lienable because it is specifically mentioned in the mechanics’ lien statute as being recoverable.  See C.R.S. § 38-22-101(5).  According to the Court, “[t]he intent of section 38-22-128 is to punish and deter those who abuse the mechanic’s lien statute by knowingly and intentionally claiming excess amounts that are totally unrelated to the construction project.”

Timothy Gordon is a partner at Holland & Hart who focuses his practice on the construction and commercial real estate industries. He is the author of the firm’s Construction Law in Colorado blog, where this post originally appeared on August 9, 2011.He is also one of the managing editors for CBA-CLE’s Practitioner’s Guide to Colorado Construction Law.

Click here for more Construction Law Updates.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Week of August 7, 2011 (No Published Opinions)

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and twenty-eight unpublished opinions for the week of August 7, 2011.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. Case announcements are available here.

Advertising Law in 2011: Attending This Program Could Help Support Your Immune System!*

* Cannot be verified by any credible medical organization.

But that doesn’t mean you won’t see some real benefits from attending this excellent program on September 9, 2011. CBA-CLE is bringing in, just for you, legal professionals from the Federal Trade Commission and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, nationally known private practitioners, and national business experts who will join together in Denver for this informative workshop about complying with truth-in-advertising laws.

No other program in the state will offer you the in-depth, comprehensive approach that this seminar will with its distinguish faculty of experts!

Topics of the program will include:

  • Priorities from the Colorado Attorney’s General’s Office, Consumer Protection Section
  • Federal Trade Commission Updates from the Bureau of Consumer Protection
  • Substantiating Advertising Claims, including Health Claims and Green Guides
  • The Use of Social Media in Advertising
  • Copyright and Trademark Primer for Non-Intellectual Property Attorneys
  • Competitive Issues, including the Lanham Act and National Advertising Division

Register today and mark your calendars for this great program. We look forward to seeing you there!

CLE Program: Advertising Law in 2011

This CLE presentation will take place on Friday, September 9. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

If you can’t make the live program or webcast, the program will also be available as a homestudy in three formats: video on-demand, mp3 download, and audio CD recordings. The course materials will also be available.

Tenth Circuit: Denial of Inmate’s Participation in Residential Drug Abuse Program within the Authority of Bureau of Prisons

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Standifer v. Ledezma on Wednesday, August 10, 2011.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner is a federal prisoner and challenges a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regulation that denies him eligibility to participate in its Residential Drug Abuse Program. He is ineligible for the program because his last-reported date of drug use was more than three years before his arrest on federal charges. He contends that the BOP’s policy requiring that it consider only his substance-abuse history for the twelve months preceding his arrest is based on an unreasonable interpretation of authorizing statutes.

The Court disagreed with Petitioner and rejected his assertions. His claim fails because the BOP’s eligibility requirement is based on a reasonable interpretation of the governing provisions; “[p]ursuant to statute, [the program] is open only to prisoners who ‘have a substance abuse problem.’ . . . The word ‘have’ is in the present tense; the statute does not require the BOP to offer any treatment for inmates who suffered from drug abuse in the past.” The BOP’s interpretation is reasonable, infringes no constitutional right, and merits deference.

Additionally, Petitioner’s assertion that the BOP was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs is similarly unavailing and was left unaddressed by the Court. “It is well-settled law that prisoners who wish to challenge only the conditions of their confinement, as opposed to its fact or duration, must do so through civil rights lawsuits . . . not through federal habeas proceedings.”

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/10/11

On Wednesday, August 10, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Unpublished

United States v. Bey

United States v. Robles

United States v. Gomez-Alamilla

No case summaries are available for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.