July 17, 2019

Archives for November 7, 2016

Twenty-first Judicial District Announces Mesa County Court Vacancy

On Thursday, November 3, 2016, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced a vacancy on the Mesa County Court in the Twenty-first Judicial District. The vacancy will be created by the appointment of Hon. Gretchen B. Larson to the Twenty-first Judicial District Court, effective January 1, 2017.

Applications are now being accepted for the upcoming vacancy. Eligible applicants must be qualified electors of Mesa County and must have been admitted to practice law in Colorado for five years. Application forms are available on the State Judicial website or from the ex officio chair of the Twenty-first Judicial District Nominating Commission, Justice William Hood, III. Applications must be received no later than 4 p.m. on December 1, 2016, to be considered. Anyone wishing to nominate another must do so no later than 4 p.m. on November 23, 2016.

For more information about the vacancy, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 11/7/2016

On Monday, November 7, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued one published opinion.

Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

The summary of this case is forthcoming.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Treasurer Should Use Diligent Efforts to Notify Occupant of Property Tax Deed

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Red Flower, Inc. v. McKown on Thursday, November 3, 2016.

Kevin McKown owned 320 acres of farmland in rural Baca County. From 2004 to 2011, he had an oral sharecrop agreement with Don Lohrey to farm the property. Lohrey visited the property every week or two to check on his crops, but he lived about ten miles away. McKown failed to pay his county property taxes, and the county treasurer sold tax liens for the real property and the mineral rights. Red Flower bought the liens in November 2007. In August 2010, Red Flower applied for treasurer’s deeds. The treasurer unsuccessfully attempted to notify McKown and published notice in the local paper in September 2010. In December 2010, she issued the deeds to Red Flower.

The following year, Red Flower filed a C.R.C.P. 105 action to quiet title to the property. McKown appeared and defended on the grounds that the tax liens were defective due to insufficient notice to himself and Lohrey. The district court determined the treasurer had made a diligent inquiry to find McKown, and a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, but remanded for determination of whether the treasurer had complied with the separate requirement to notify the property’s occupant, Lohrey. On remand, the district court struggled with the statutory language, and ultimately concluded that the treasurer’s notice to Lohrey was deficient and the tax deeds were void.

Red Flower appealed, arguing that the district court’s construction cannot be squared with the language or intent of the statutory scheme. The court of appeals agreed with Red Flower that the district court’s reasoning was incorrect as to the mineral deed. After analyzing C.R.S. § 39-11-128, the court concluded that it was illogical to require the treasurer to put forth more effort to locate the occupant of the property than the property owner. The court, however, noted that it was presumed that the occupant of the property could be found on the property. The court found that the district court correctly concluded that treasurer need not conduct “diligent inquiry” to determine the location of the occupant, but it erred in determining that the treasurer had some limitless duty to locate the occupant. The court instead may simply serve notice to occupants at the property. Because Lohrey was not an actual occupant of the property, but the parties stipulated to his occupancy, the court of appeals remanded for a determination of whether the treasurer made a “diligent inquiry” as to his whereabouts before conveying the mineral deed.

As to the real property deeds, the court of appeals found an error in publication. The court noted that the statute requires publication once a week for three weeks, and publication must take place not more than five months nor less than three months before the tax deeds may issue. Because the tax deeds issued less than three months after publication, the notice was deficient. The court declined to say the deeds were void, since the taxing authority had jurisdiction to issue them, but instead determined the deeds were voidable. The court affirmed summary judgment to McKown as to the real property deed.

The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Tenth Circuit: Employer’s Payment of Food Expenses Exempt from FLSA Overtime Compensation Rate

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Sharp v. CGG Land (USA), Inc. on Friday, November 4, 2016.

CGG is a company that provides seismic mapping services at remote locations throughout the United States. CGG employees are required to travel away from home for several weeks to the remote locations. Generally, employees travel for four-to-eight week intervals, then return home for two-to-four week intervals before returning to the field. While traveling, CGG provides a $35 per diem for meals, except when food is provided. A group of employees filed suit against CGG, arguing CGG violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not including in their regular reimbursement rates the $35 per diem for food during travel periods.

After stipulating to material facts in district court, including that $35 was a reasonable amount for daily meals, each party moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to CGG. The district court agreed with CGG that the per diem payments were exempt travel expenses under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(2). The employees appealed.

On appeal, the employees argued the payments were not exempt for days when they traveled to and from remote job sites, because they did not do any work on those days. Employees further claimed the payments were not exempt for days they spent at the job sites because they were no longer traveling over the road. Employees also claimed CGG waived all defenses except its claim that the payments were exempt under § 207(e)(2). The Tenth Circuit rejected each contention in turn.

The Tenth Circuit noted that the Department of Labor rejected the argument that food costs may not be included as “living expenses.” The Tenth Circuit agreed with the DOL that the cost of food is an expense the employee incurs for the employer’s benefit and therefore is an exempt living expense. Employees argued they were not “traveling over the road” once they reached the job site, but the Tenth Circuit characterized this as a hyper-literal construction of the word “traveling.” The Tenth Circuit read “traveling” as all time away from home, not just time in transit. Employees also suggested CGG paid the $35 as part of a scheme to set an artificially low hourly pay rate to underpay overtime pay. The Tenth Circuit found the parties’ stipulation that the $35 per diem was reasonable defeated this argument.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to CGG.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 11/4/2016

On Friday, November 4, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

United States v. Schneider

United States v. Carey

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