July 16, 2019

Archives for February 1, 2016

Probate, Name Change, and More JDF Forms Amended by State Judicial in January

In January 2016, the Colorado State Judicial Branch issued 13 new forms. Many of the forms are in the Probate category, specifically dealing with adult guardianships, and the rest of the forms include forms about name changes, request for payment of fees, and appointments of guardians ad litem. The forms are available here in PDF format and are available from the State Judicial forms page in Word or PDF.


  • JDF 895 – “Instructions to Register Out of State Guardianship or Conservatorship Orders for Adult in Colorado” (1/16)
  • JDF 797 – “Rights of Respondent in Appointment of Guardian/Conservator” (R01/16)
  • JDF 799 – “Information for Respondent in Appointment of Guardian” (R01/16)
  • JDF 805 – “Acceptance of Office” (R01/16)
  • JDF 854 – “Order for Termination of Guardianship” (R01/16)


  • JDF 385 – “Instructions for Filing a Change of Name Following Conviction/Adjudication of a Felony” (R01/16)
  • JDF 388 – “Instructions for Filing a Change of Name for an Individual 70 Years of Age or Older” (R01/16)
  • JDF 432 – “Instructions for Filing a Change of Name (Adult)” (R01/16)
  • JDF 387 – “Final Decree for Change of Name to Obtain Identity Related Documents” (R01/16)
  • JDF 433 – “Petition for Change of Name (Adult)” (R01/16)


  • JDF 208 – “Application for Public Defender, Court-Appointed Counsel, or Guardian Ad Litem” (R01/16)


  • JDF 1318 – “Order Appointing Child and Family Investigator” (R01/16)


  • JDF 207 – “Request and Authorization for Payment of Fees” (R01/16)

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

Colorado Court of Appeals: Contractual Option Between Actual and Liquidated Damages Not Inherently Void

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Ravenstar LLC v. One Ski Hill Place LLC on Thursday, January 28, 2016.

Ravenstar and the other plaintiffs are Colorado companies who entered into separate contracts with One Ski Hill Place (OSHP) to purchase not yet built condominium units. Plaintiffs paid earnest money of 15% of the purchase price but were unable to obtain financing and failed to close on the units by the deadline. The contracts between OSHP and all plaintiffs contained an identical provision allowing OSHP to choose between actual or liquidated damages in the event of default. OSHP chose liquidated damages. Plaintiffs brought suit against OSHP, raising several claims, including breach of contract. Many claims were dismissed prior to the litigation at issue. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled against plaintiffs on all their remaining claims and imposed attorney fees on plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the contract clause that allowed OSHP to choose between actual and liquidated damages was unenforceable because there was no mutual intent to liquidate damages as required under Colorado law. The Colorado Court of Appeals declined to adopt reasoning from other jurisdictions that the mere presence of an option between actual and liquidated damages renders a contract unenforceable. The court noted that the option to choose liquidated damages did not operate as a penalty in every case, and since the parties stipulated that the amount of liquidated damages was reasonable, they could not show that they were being penalized by the imposition of liquidated damages.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court, also affirming the attorney fee award.

Colorado Court of Appeals: City Liable for Medical Costs of Person in Custody

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Denver Health & Hospital Authority v. City of Arvada on Thursday, January 28, 2016.

Arvada police were called to a domestic disturbance involving Terry Ross. While they were there, Ross attempted suicide and was taken by ambulance to Denver Health, where he was treated for a gunshot wound to the face. Eventually, he was released into the custody of Arvada police. In March 2014, Denver Health filed a complaint against the City of Arvada for payment of Ross’s medical expenses, seeking $29,264.69 from Arvada. The parties stipulated to the facts and filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied Arvada’s motion and granted Denver Health’s, ruling the hospital was entitled to payment under C.R.S. § 16-3-401(2).

On appeal, the city argued § 16-3-401(2) was void for vagueness because it does not expressly define the term “in custody” and does not address at what point in time the term applies. Arvada challenged the vagueness of the statute on its face, not as applied. The Colorado Court of Appeals found the statute was not vague on its face when read together with other provisions of Title 16. Arvada argued Ross was not in custody when his need for medical care arose and therefore it should not be liable for the cost of treatment. The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the legislature intended the costs of medical treatment for detainees to be borne by the detaining party.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Denver Health. Judge Vogt wrote a special concurrence, urging the legislature to resolve the problem of when a municipality is liable for medical costs of a person with whom it interacts.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 1/29/2016

On Friday, January 29, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

Velarde v. Archuleta

Zhang v. Lynch

Unal v. Los Alamos Public Schools

Evans v. Colvin

United States v. Fraughton

Hannah v. Cowlishaw

Parker v. Colvin

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