September 25, 2018

Archives for December 13, 2017

Rule Change 2017(12) Issued, Amending Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure

On Thursday, December 7, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court issued Rule Change 2017(12), amending the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 16 was amended to reference new forms available to use when offering records of regularly conducted activity pursuant to CRE 902(11) and (12). The new forms, Form 37 and Form 38, were introduced, and Forms 10 and 11 were amended. These changes are effective immediately.

Rule 53, “Masters,” was introduced, effective January 1, 2018. The rule provides guidelines for the appointment of masters. Rule 121, § 1-15 was also amended effective January 1, 2018, to delete specific page requirements of briefs and instead refer to Rule 10(d), and also to add information about self-represented parties.

Finally, Rule 120, “Orders Authorizing Foreclosure Sale Under Power in a Deed of Trust to the Public Trustee,” was significantly amended. These changes are effective March 1, 2018.

A redline and clean copy of the rule change is available here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s adopted and proposed rule changes, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Juvenile Court Did Not Err in Failing to Make Written Finding of Dependency & Neglect

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People in Interest of J.W. on Monday, December 11, 2017.

Children’s Code—Dependency or Neglect Proceedings—Jurisdiction.

The supreme court reviewed whether a juvenile court validly terminated a mother’s parent-child legal relationship without first entering a formal written order adjudicating her children as dependent or neglected. The juvenile court accepted mother’s admission that her children were neglected or dependent, but did not enter a formal order adjudicating the children’s status as to mother before it terminated mother’s parental rights approximately a year later. The court of appeals held that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to terminate mother’s parental rights because it had not entered an order adjudicating the children’s status as dependent or neglected.

The supreme court held that the juvenile court’s acceptance of mother’s admission established the children’s status as dependent or neglected, thus fulfilling the purpose of the adjudicative process and permitting state intervention into the familial relationship. The juvenile court’s failure to enter an adjudicative order confirming the children’s status did not divest the juvenile court of jurisdiction to terminate mother’s parental rights in this case, nor did it impair the fundamental fairness of the proceedings or deprive the mother of due process under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider mother’s other contentions on appeal.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Interactions Between Police and Defendant Non-Custodial for Miranda Purposes

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Garcia on Monday, December 11, 2017.

Miranda Warnings.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the interactions between law enforcement officers and defendant inside her home and in her front yard did not constitute custody for Miranda purposes. Under the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would not have believed her freedom of action had been curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court’s suppression order.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Election Challenge Time-Barred When Filed and Equitable Tolling Did Not Apply

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Association, Inc. on Monday, December 11, 2017.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights—Election Challenges—C.R.S. § 1-11-213(4)—Non-claim Statutes.

This case principally required the supreme court to determine whether the 10-day time limitation set forth in C.R.S. § 1-11-213(4) barred respondent homeowners association’s challenge to an election authorizing the issuance of bonds and the collection of debt pursuant to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Respondent contended that the election was invalid because its members were eligible electors, and these electors did not receive notice of the election and were not given an opportunity to vote in it. It is undisputed that respondent did not file its election challenge until more than three years after the statutory deadline. The question thus was whether respondent’s challenge could proceed, based on the equitable tolling doctrine or the exception for certain types of claims articulated in Cacioppo v. Eagle County School District Re-50J, 92 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2004). With regard to equitable tolling, the court concluded that C.R.S. § 1-11-213(4) is a non-claim statute. Accordingly, the doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply. As to Cacioppo, the court concluded that respondent’s claim is not a challenge to the substance of the ballot issue but rather is a challenge to the means by which the election results were obtained. The court thus concluded that respondent’s claim is subject to C.R.S. § 1-11-213(4)’s 10-day time limit and that its challenge to the bond and tax election at issue was time barred. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 12/11/2017

On Monday, December 11, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

United States v. Rollins

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

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 12/7/2017

On Thursday, December 7, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

Walker v. Schnurr

United States v. Toombs

Craighead v. Bear

United States v. Brooks

United States v. Roberts

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