May 20, 2019

Archives for March 24, 2015

Frederick Skillern: Real Estate Case Law — Titles and Title Insurance (1)

Editor’s note: This is Part 16 of a series of posts in which Denver-area real estate attorney Frederick Skillern provides summaries of case law pertinent to real estate practitioners (click here for previous posts). These updates originally appeared as materials for the 32nd Annual Real Estate Symposium in July 2014.

frederick-b-skillernBy Frederick B. Skillern

Grosboll v. Grosboll (In re Estate of Grossboll)
Colorado Court of Appeals, October 24, 2013
2013 COA 141

Partnership property; statute of frauds.

Jo Ann Grosboll, decedents’ daughter, appeals the district court’s order finding that the sales proceeds of an apartment building are an asset of the parents’ estates rather than an asset of Grosboll Manor, L.L.L.P., a limited partnership formed by Jo Ann and her parents. Jo Ann’s brother, understandably, argues that the apartments are property of the estate. The key issue revolves around the fact that there is no deed of conveyance to the partnership.

As a matter of first impression, the court considers whether real property owned individually by one who enters into a partnership with others may become a partnership asset without a written conveyance sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. The court holds that a written conveyance (such as a deed) from a partner to the partnership is not necessarily required.

The court reviews the historical development of the entity theory of partnerships and the Uniform Partnership Act. The current version of the partnership act allows real property titled in an individual partner’s name to be deemed an asset of the partnership. The trust relationship between partners provides adequate protection against fraud in oral agreements making a partner’s real property a partnership asset. As a result, by statute, the intention of the partners determines whether such real property is a partnership asset. The existence of a written conveyance is a factor for a court to consider in evaluating that intent.

Jo Ann contended that, according to the terms of the written partnership agreement and the intention of the partners, Loma Vista was a partnership asset. The partnership agreement provided that (1) title to all assets of the partnership shall be deemed to be owned by the partnership”; (2) record title to any or all assets of the partnership may be held in the name of . . . one or more nominees”; and (3) all assets of the partnership shall be recorded as the property of the partnership in the books and records of the partnership, irrespective of the name in which record title to such assets is held.” Jo Ann testified that when the partnership was established, she and her parents had agreed to make Loma Vista a partnership asset. Additionally, the accountant for the partnership testified that he treated Loma Vista as a partnership asset on the partnership books. Therefore, Jo Ann asserted she was entitled to the sale proceeds because decedents’ wills devised their interests in the partnership to her.

The partnership act provides a rebuttable presumption that a partner’s property is separate if it is not acquired with partnership assets:

Property acquired in the name of one or more of the partners, without an indication in the instrument transferring title to the property of the person’s capacity as a partner or of the existence of a partnership and without use of partnership assets is presumed to be separate property, even if used for partnership purposes.

C.R.S. § 7-64-204(4).

Because the UPL and UPA specifically contemplate that real property titled in an individual partner’s name may be deemed an asset of the partnership, the appeals court holds here that a written conveyance from a partner who originally brings real estate into the partnership, although a factor to consider, is not required to convert real property into partnership property.

Frederick B. Skillern, Esq., is a director and shareholder with Montgomery Little & Soran, P.C., practicing in real estate and related litigation and appeals. He serves as an expert witness in cases dealing with real estate, professional responsibility and attorney fees, and acts as a mediator and arbitrator in real estate cases. Before joining Montgomery Little in 2003, Fred was in private practice in Denver for 6 years with Carpenter & Klatskin and for 10 years with Isaacson Rosenbaum. He served as a district judge for Colorado’s Eighteenth Judicial District from 2000 through 2002. Fred is a graduate of Dartmouth College, and received his law degree at the University of Colorado in 1976, in another day and time in which the legal job market was simply awful.

Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs to Retire

Justice HobbsThe Colorado State Judicial Branch announced last week that Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs will retire, effective August 31, 2015.

Justice Hobbs was appointed to the Colorado Supreme Court on May 1, 1996, by Governor Roy Romer. Prior to his appointment, Justice Hobbs was the senior partner at Hobbs, Trout & Raley, P.C., where he practiced in the areas of water law, environmental law, and land use; a partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs; an assistant attorney general in the natural resources section for the State of Colorado; and an enforcement attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Justice Hobbs received his undergraduate degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard University and his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Justice Hobbs is a frequent speaker and author, and has written three water-themed books for CBA-CLE: The Public’s Water ResourceLiving the Four Corners, and Into the Grand.

Applications are now being accepted for the forthcoming vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court. Qualified applicants must be electors in the State of Colorado and must have been licensed to practice law in Colorado for five years. Application forms are available from the Colorado State Judicial Branch website and also from the ex officio chair of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, Chief Justice Nancy Rice. Applications must be received no later than 4 p.m. on May 6, 2015. Anyone wishing to nominate another person must do so no later than 4 p.m. on April 29, 2015.

More information about the judicial vacancy is available here.

Bill to Add Judge in 12th Judicial District and More Signed

On Friday, March 20, 2015, Governor Hickenlooper signed ten bills into law. To date, he has signed 68 bills into law. The bills signed Friday are summarized here.

  • HB 15-1059 – Concerning the Board of Directors of the Denver Health and Hospital Authority, by Rep. Alec Garnett and Sen. Lucia Guzman. The bill adds two board members to the Denver Health and Hospital Authority board, removes outdated language, and dictates a new process for removing board members.
  • HB 15-1122 – Concerning Limiting Eligibility for Parole, and, in Connection Therewith, Amending Certain Provisions Concerning the Revocation of Parole for Certain Inmates, by Rep. Rhonda Fields and Sen. John Cooke. The bill aligns procedures for parole of offenders under the statute to current DOC practice.
  • HB 15-1029 – Concerning Coverage Under a Health Benefit Plan for Health Care Services Delivered Through Telehealth in Any Area of the State, by Reps. Perry Buck & Joann Ginal and Sens. John Kefalas & Beth Martinez Humenik. The bill requires all health benefit plans in Colorado to provide telemedicine options when telemedicine is considered an equal standard of care.
  • HB 15-1034 – Concerning an Increase in the Number of District Court Judges in the Twelfth Judicial District, and, in Connection Therewith, Making an Appropriation, by Rep. Ed Vigil and Sen. Larry Crowder. The bill adds a district court judge in the Twelfth Judicial District.
  • HB 15-1032 – Concerning the Addition of Licensed Mental Health Professionals as Authorized Providers of Mental Health Services to Minors who are At Least Fifteen Years of Age, by Rep. Jonathan Singer and Sen. Irene Aguilar. The bill expands the definition of qualified mental health providers for involuntarily committed minors to include licensed social workers, licensed professional counselors, and licensed addiction counselors.
  • HB 15-1078 – Concerning Immediate Reporting of Missing Children who are in the Custody of a State Agency to Law Enforcement for Inclusion in National Crime Databases, by Reps. Dan Nordberg & Beth McCann and Sens. Cheri Jahn & Laura Woods. The bill requires reporting of missing children to law enforcement within 24 hours of noticing the child is missing when the child is in the custody of county or state departments of human services.
  • HB 15-1174 – Concerning the Confidentiality of Personal Information for Participants in the Address Confidentiality Program and, in Connection Therewith, Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking, by Rep. Terri Carver and Sen. Laura Woods. The bill prevents the state from knowingly disclosing the address of a person in the address confidentiality program, including unique identifying information about his or her residential, work, or school address.
  • HB 15-1070 – Concerning Changes to the Crime Profits Distribution Statute, by Rep. John Buckner and Sen. Beth Martinez Humenik. The bill makes several changes regarding the distribution of crime profits.
  • HB 15-1094 – Concerning Restorative Justice, by Rep. Pete Lee and Sens. John Cooke & Linda Newell. The bill makes several changes to the judicial department’s restorative justice programs, including adding members, allowing gifts to support restorative justice, and expanding eligibility to juveniles.
  • HB 15-1060 – Concerning Protection Orders in Sex Offense Cases, by Rep.  Millie Hamner and Sen. John Cooke. The bill requires a defendant in a sexual offense case to acknowledge any protection orders in court and in writing prior to release on bond.

For a complete list of Governor Hickenlooper’s 2015 legislative decisions, click here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/23/2015

On Monday, March 23, 2015, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions.

United States v. Arizmendi-Moreno

Al Fatlawi v. Holder

United States v. Dowell

Marquez v. Line

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.