July 16, 2019

Colorado Supreme Court: Dog Owner Owes No Duty of Care to Child who was Scared by Dogs and Ran Into Street

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in N.M. v. Trujillo on Monday, June 26, 2017.

Negligence—Duty of Care—Nonfeasance—Special Relationships—C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5).

This case required the supreme court to determine whether respondent, a dog owner, owed a duty of care to petitioner, a child who became frightened when respondent’s dogs rushed at respondent’s front yard fence and who, although not touched by the fenced-in dogs, ran into the street and was struck and injured by a passing van. Because petitioner’s negligence claim against respondent was predicated on alleged nonfeasance, or failure to act, and because the case is distinguishable from cases in which a dangerous or vicious animal attacks and directly injures someone, petitioner was required to plead a special relationship between himself and respondent to establish the duty of care necessary to support his negligence claim. Petitioner did not, however, plead such a special relationship. Accordingly, the court concluded that, as a matter of law, respondent owed no duty of care to petitioner and thus the district court properly dismissed petitioner’s negligence claim against respondent. The court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Each Animal Subject to Neglect or Abuse Constitutes Separate Cruelty Count

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Harris on Thursday, November 3, 2016.

After a neighbor called the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region to report a dead horse near his property line, Sergeant Stephanie Garcia and a fellow officer investigated Harris’s property and discovered several emaciated animals. Sergeant Garcia sought and received a search warrant (the horse warrant) for Harris’s ranch to investigate animal cruelty. While the animal protection agents executed the search warrant with accompanying law enforcement officers, they found a recently deceased donkey who appeared severely underfed, and also discovered several malnourished dogs. They sought and received another warrant for the dogs, since the horse warrant was limited in scope to livestock. Harris was charged with fifteen counts of cruelty to animals (second offense) and two counts of needlessly killing an animal.

About two weeks later, the neighbor reported that Harris had dragged three dead horses onto his property. The neighbor later observed Harris and her brother attempting to drag the horses back onto her own property. Sergeant Garcia contacted Harris and entered her property with permission. She observed two more dead horses. Harris was charged in a separate case with aggravated cruelty to animals for needlessly killing the five horses. The cases were consolidated for trial.

Several witnesses testified at trial, including an expert in veterinary medicine who was present during the search. All of the prosecution’s witnesses testified that the animals appeared severely malnourished and there was no evidence of food on the property. Harris’s theory of defense was that the water had a high sulfate level and the animals were malnourished due to the high sulfate. Harris insisted she was feeding her horses and justified the lack of food by saying she procured hay from a neighbor on a daily basis. The jury convicted Harris on all counts. In a bifurcated proceeding, the court found that the fifteen animal cruelty convictions counted as a second offense due to Harris’s 2007 convictions for misdemeanor animal cruelty. She was sentenced to concurrent 10-year sentences on all counts in the first case and concurrent three-year counts on the aggravated cruelty counts in the second case. She appealed.

In district court, Harris moved to suppress all evidence from the search on the grounds that animal protection agents are not statutorily authorized to obtain livestock warrants and both warrants lacked probable cause. The court of appeals agreed that the animal protection agent exceeded her authority in obtaining the warrants. Under the statute, only government agents are authorized to investigate livestock abuse. Because the animal protection agent was employed by a private nonprofit corporation, she was not authorized to apply for a livestock warrant. The court, however, found that the statutory deficiency did not rise to the level of a constitutional deficiency. To be valid under the United States and Colorado Constitutions, a warrant must have been issued by a neutral magistrate, those seeking the warrant must have demonstrated probable cause, and the warrant must describe with particularity the things to be seized. In this case, the warrants at issue met all three requirements. Therefore, the exclusionary rule did not apply because there was no constitutional violation.

Harris next contended that the animal cruelty was one continuous act, so she should have been charged with only one count of animal cruelty. The court noted that this argument turned on whether the statutory language contemplated animals as property or as sentient beings capable of feeling pain. The court evaluated the history of animal cruelty laws and found that there was a shift from considering animals as property to recognizing them as sentient beings. The court then analyzed the statutory language and found that because the language considered “an animal” or “any animal,” charging each act of cruelty separately was permissible.

Harris raised several other points of error, which the court addressed and rejected in turn. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Colorado Court of Appeals: License Suspension Arbitrary and Capricious Due to Lack of Standards

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Farmer v. Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission on Thursday, August 25, 2016.

Big Game Hunter—Suspension of Wildlife License—Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission—Agency Standards—Arbitrary and Capricious.

Farmer is a big game hunter and guide. After allowing his Colorado outfitter’s license to lapse, Farmer was charged with six counts of illegal sale of big game wildlife for outfitting mountain lion hunts without the proper license. Farmer pleaded guilty to one count. Pursuant to CRS § 33-6-113(2)(a), his guilty plea triggered an administrative hearing by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) to determine whether to suspend Farmer’s wildlife license privileges. After a hearing, Farmer’s hunting license was suspended for 20 years. Farmer initiated this action for review of the Commission’s decision, and the district court affirmed.

On appeal, Farmer contended that he was deprived of due process because neither CRS §§ 33-6-106 and -113 nor any applicable regulations contain sufficient standards to constrain the Commission’s discretion in determining the length of his suspension. CRS § 33-6-113(2)(a) merely provides that, upon conviction for the illegal sale of big game, the Commission may suspend “any or all wildlife license privileges of the person for a minimum of one year to life.” Because neither the statute nor any applicable regulations provide sufficient standards to guide the Commission’s suspension decision, its action in suspending Farmer’s license was arbitrary and capricious.

The district court’s order was reversed and Farmer’s suspension was vacated. Because remanding to the hearing officer would not provide Farmer a complete remedy for the arbitrary and capricious suspension of his license under defective procedures, the Court of Appeals declined to remand for a new hearing.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

HB 16-1308: Establishing Criminal Penalties for Misrepresentation of a Service Animal

On March 2, 2016, Rep. Daniel Kagan and Sen. Linda Newell introduced HB 16-1308Concerning the Offense of Intentional Misrepresentation of a Service Animal. The bill was introduced in the House Judiciary Committee, where it was amended and referred to the House Committee of the Whole. The bill was amended on Second and Third Readings in the House and was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was postponed indefinitely.

This bill creates the criminal offense of intentional misrepresentation of a service animal (referred to herein as “offense), which is committed if: (1) a person intentionally misrepresents an animal in his or her possession as a service animal (or service-animal-in-training) for the purpose of obtaining any of the rights or privileges granted by law to persons with disabilities; and (2) the person knows that the animal is question is not a service animal (or service-animal-in-training).

If convicted, the defendant must pay $33 plus: $350-$1,000 for a first offense; $600-$1,000 for a second offense; and $1,000-$5,000, plus community service, for a third offense.

A district court may order the conviction record sealed if: (1) the defendant files a petition and pays the filing fee; (2) the defendant’s first offense was at least three years prior to filing the petition; and (3) the defendant has not had a subsequent conviction for the offense.

Max Montag is a 2016 J.D. Candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Dog Owner Owes No Duty of Care to Person Injured by Truck Off Property

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Lopez v. Trujillo on Thursday, April 7, 2016.

Dog Owner Liability—Duty of Care—Premises Liability Act Definition of Landowner.

Plaintiffs, N.M. and his parent and legal guardian, Lopez, appealed from an order dismissing their complaint against defendant Trujillo.

Eight-year-old N.M. was walking on a sidewalk with another boy. As he passed defendant’s home, two large, loudly barking pit bulls rushed at the boys, unprovoked. The dogs jumped up and rattled a four-foot high chain-link fence. N.M. was allegedly so frightened that he darted from the sidewalk into the street and was struck by a service van, causing him serious injuries. Plaintiffs sued and settled with the driver and owner of the van.

On appeal, plaintiffs argued the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that defendant owed no duty to N.M and was not subject to liability as a “landowner” under the Premises Liability Act (PLA).

Deciding an issue of first impression, the court of appeals considered whether a dog owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to an injured party when the injured party was not directly injured by the dogs or on the dog owner’s property and the dogs remained confined and never left the landowner’s property. The court held there was no such duty.

The court also agreed with the district court that public sidewalks adjacent to a landowner’s property are not property of the landowner under the PLA.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Person with Permission to Enter Property but Not Express Invitation is Licensee Under PLA

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Legro v. Robinson on Thursday, December 31, 2015.

Interlocutory Appeal—Premises Liability Act—Dog Bite Statute—Colorado Recreational Use Statute.

The Robinsons are sheep ranchers who hold a permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) that allows them to graze sheep within the White River National Forest (subject land). Ms. Legro sustained serious injuries when two of the Robinsons’ predator control dogs attacked her on a road on the subject land while she was participating in a bike race sponsored by the Vail Recreation District. Both the Robinsons and the District had permit authorization to access the road. The Legros sued, asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, loss of consortium, and strict liability under the dog bite statute.

The Robinsons moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Colorado Premises Liability Act (PLA) preempted the Legros’ common law claims and they were not subject to liability under the dog bite statute because of the working dog exemption. The district court granted the motion. The Legros appealed, and a division of the Court of Appeals in Legro Iaffirmed that the Robinsons were landowners under the PLA, but concluded it was error to find the working dog exemption defeated the Legros’ strict liability claim. The Supreme Court granted certiorarito consider whether the Court in Legros Icorrectly interpreted the working dog exemption. The Supreme Court found it had been incorrect and that the working dog exemption insulates a dog owner from strict liability if a person is bitten by a working dog while (1) on the property of the dog owner or (2) the dog is working under the control of the dog owner on either public or private property.

On remand, the Legros were granted leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for relief under the PLA. In a CRCP 56(h) motion, the Robinsons asked the district court to determine the duty they owed Ms. Legro under the PLA. They argued that the Colorado Recreational Use Statute (CRUS) applied, so Ms. Legro was a trespasser. Alternatively, they argued Ms. Legro was neither an invitee nor a licensee under the PLA.

The district court held that the CRUS did not apply to this case and that Ms. Legro was a trespasser as to the Robinsons under the PLA. Sua sponte, it also ruled that the working dog exemption barred the Legros’ strict liability claim because the Robinsons’ grazing permit created a sufficient property interest to satisfy the exemption.

The Legros argued it was error to find that Ms. Legro was a trespasser, and the Court of Appeals agreed. The grazing permit from the USFS provided a sufficient basis to infer that, by accepting the permit, the Robinsons consented to Ms. Legro’s entry on the property. The permit allows the USFS to determine who may enter the property, and therefore the Robinsons impliedly consented to entry on the property by anyone the USFS allowed. The Court then looked to whether Ms. Legro was affirmatively invited (invitee) or merely permitted (licensee). Because the USFS merely permitted Ms. Legro’s entry as part of the permit for the bike race, she was a licensee, not an invitee.

The Legros also argued it was error to hold that the working dog exemption applied so as to insulate the Robinsons from strict liability under the dog bite statute. The Court agreed, finding that the grazing permit did not confer a property interest in the subject land and therefore the exemption did not apply. The district court’s order was reversed and the case was remanded.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Breeder of Rodents for Food Needs “Pet Animal” License to Operate Facility

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Salazar v. Kubic on Thursday, October 8, 2015.

Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act—Rats and Mice are Pet Animals.

Kubic, doing business as the Willards Rodent Factory, raises and houses more than 200 mice and rats at her facility. The rodents are sold as feed for snakes and other carnivores. Until March 2013, Kubic had a valid license issued under the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA) to operate a “pet animal facility,” but she let it expire.

In June 2013, the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture issued a cease and desist order to Kubic because of the lapsed license. She continued to operate, and the trial court granted the Commissioner’s request for a permanent injunction to prevent her from operating without the required PACFA license. The injunction was stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.

Kubic argued that the trial court erred in its interpretation of PACFA’s definitions of “pet animal” and “pet animal facility” to require her to be licensed to operate her facility. Specifically, she argued that her mice and rats are not within the PACFA’s definition of “pet animal.” The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the statutory language expressly includes mice and rats. The judgment was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Bills Regarding Trustee Notification, Recorded Documents, and More Signed

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015, Governor Hickenlooper signed nine bills into law. Governor Hickenlooper has now signed 58 bills this legislative session. The bills signed Wednesday are summarized here.

  • HB 15-1010 – Concerning a Presumption that a Trustee has Notified a Beneficiary when the Trustee has Adopted a Beneficiary Notification Procedure, and, in Connection Therewith, Clarifying that a Trustee May Deliver Information to Beneficiaries Electronically, by Reps. Tracy Kraft-Tharp & Dan Nordberg and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill creates a presumption that a beneficiary of a trust has received notifications about the status of a trust when the trustee has notification procedures in place, and also allows electronic notifications for beneficiaries who elect electronic notifications.
  • HB 15-1022 – Concerning Juveniles Charged with Certain Minor Offenses, by Rep. Beth McCann and Sens. Pat Steadman & John Cooke. The bill allows police officers to issue petty offense tickets to juveniles if certain conditions are met.
  • HB 15-1028 – Concerning Repeal of the Mercantile Licensing Standards, by Rep. Jon Keyser and Sen. Cheri Jahn. The bill repeals licensing requirements for merchants because the requirements are not enforced.
  • HB 15-1062 – Concerning Increasing the Penalties for Persons who Engage in Animal Fighting, by Reps. Jovan Melton & Steve Lebsock and Sens. David Balmer & Jerry Sonnenberg. The bill requires mandatory fines for convictions for animal fighting.
  • HB 15-1064 – Concerning Access to the Safe Deposit Box of a Decedent, and, in Connection Therewith, Limiting the Obligations of Custodians who Access the Box, by Rep. Dan Nordberg and Sen. Chris Holbert. The bill clarifies who has access to a decedent’s safe deposit box under the Colorado Probate Code and and clarifies that the custodian is not deemed to have knowledge about the contents of the box.
  • HB 15-1069 – Concerning Information Required to be Included in Recorded Written Instruments Filed with the County Clerk and Recorder to Claim a Homestead Exemption, by Rep. Su Ryden and Sen. Chris Holbert. The bill adds a requirement that a property owner’s name be included on a homestead exemption document.
  • HB 15-1071 – Concerning Clarification that, Following a Merger of Entities, the Surviving Entity is Entitled to Control the Premerger Attorney-Client Privileges of a Constituent Entity, by Rep. Jon Keyser and Sen. Owen Hill. The bill specifies that a corporation that merges with another entity inherits the attorney-client privilege from the other entity.
  • SB 15-057 – Concerning the Reporting Requirements of the Colorado Clean Claims Task Force, by Sen. David Balmer and Rep. Angela Williams. The bill changes the reporting requirements for the Colorado Medical Clean Claims Task Force so that the reports will go to the Commissioner of Insurance and the business committee of the General Assembly.
  • SB 15-142 – Concerning a Change in State Law to Make Requirements for Moneys Held in Escrow for the Payment of Ad Valorem Property Taxes the Same as the Requirements of the Federal “Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974”, by Sen. Ellen Roberts and Rep. Dan Pabon. The bill conforms state law to the requirements of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, specifically repealing May 30 date for final settlement and changing the provision to reference RESPA.

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

e-Legislative Report: February 17, 2015

legislationCBA Legislative Policy Committee

For followers who are new to CBA legislative activity, the Legislative Policy Committee (“LPC”) is the CBA’s legislative policy making arm during the legislative session. The LPC meets weekly during the legislative session to determine CBA positions from requests from the various sections and committees of the Bar Association.

Meeting held Friday, February 13

SB 15-129 — Preserving Parent-child Relationships
Sponsor: Senator Kevin Lundberg (R)
The LPC voted to oppose this bill in part because of the fundamental way that it changed the presumption of parenting time away from the “best interest of the child” to a different standard more focused on the parents in divorce proceedings. The bill was heard in committee on Wednesday the 11th and was passed on a party line vote after substantial amendments. SB-129 was referred to the Appropriations Committee for consideration of the bill’s fiscal impact.

SB 15-174 — Uniform Substitute Decision Making Documents Act
Sponsor: Senator Patrick Steadman (D)
The LPC voted to oppose this bill. The committee felt that the bill conflicts with existing statute, was unnecessary in many respects and that it potentially created more gaps and questions with existing law than its adoption would solve.

HB 15-1091 — Policies On Juvenile Shackling In Court
Sponsors: Representative Susan Lontine (D), Senator Michael G. Merrifield (D)
The LPC was concerned that while this bill was very well intentioned, it raised significant potential problems with separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches.

At the Capitol: Week of February 9

SB 15-049 — Real Estate Title Vests In Entity Once Formed
Sponsors: Senator Beth Martinez Humenik (R), Representative Jon Keyser (R)
This bill, supported by the Bar, passed through the Senate this past week. It has been assigned to the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee and has not yet been calendared for a hearing.

HB 15-1121 — Wind Energy Generation
Sponsors: Representative Jon Becker (R), Senator Jerry Sonnenberg (R)
The bill, supported by the Bar, also passed through its first chamber (the House) last week. It will next be heard in the Senate, where it has been assigned to the Agriculture, Natural Resources & Energy Committee. It will be heard by that committee on February 19.

SB 15-077 — Parents’ Bill of Rights
Sponsors: Senator Tim Neville (R), Representative Patrick Neville (R)
The bill passed out of the Senate committee hearing on a party line vote, and was debated on the floor. The bill was passed with amendments, and now moves to the House for consideration. It has not been calendared for consideration.

SB 15-042 — Mandatory Reports Of Animal Abuse
Sponsors: Senator Jerry Sonnenberg (R), Representative Jon Becker (R)
This bill was Postponed Indefinitely (killed) in committee. It will not be considered again this year. The CBA was opposed to the legislation.

HB 15-1101 — Public Defender ADC Records Open Records
Sponsors: Representatives Rhonda Fields (D), Polly Lawrence (R)
This bill was Postponed Indefinitely (killed) in committee. It will not be considered again this year. The CBA was opposed to the legislation.

HB 15-1174 — Information Protections Domestic Violence Victims
Sponsors: Representative Terri Carver (R), Senator Laura Woods (R)
The CBA has not taken a position on this bill—though we are working with the sponsors to ensure that the program will work as intended and not harm the real estate transaction process as a result of its adoption or implementation. It is likely that the CBA and its sections will participate in stakeholder groups and work sessions this summer.

New Bills of Interest


SB 15-177 — HOA Construction Defect Lawsuit Approval Timelines
Sponsors: Brian DelGrosso (R), Mark Scheffel (R), Jonathan Singer (D), Jessie M. Ulibarri (D)
The bill states that when the governing documents of a common interest community require mediation or arbitration of a construction defect claim and the requirement is later amended or removed, mediation or arbitration is still required for a construction defect claim. These provisions are in section 2 of the bill.

Section 2 also specifies that the mediation or arbitration must take place in the judicial district in which the community is located and that the arbitrator must:

  • Be a neutral third party;
  • Make certain disclosures before being selected; and
  • Be selected as specified in the common interest community’s governing documents or, if not so specified, in accordance with the uniform arbitration act.

Section 1 adds definitions of key terms. Section 3 requires that before a construction defect claim is filed on behalf of the association:

  • The parties must submit the matter to mediation before a neutral third party; and The board must give advance notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of the projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim, and must obtain the written consent of the owners of units to which at least a majority of the votes in the association are allocated.

Section 4 adds to the disclosures required prior to the purchase and sale of property in a common interest community a notice that the community’s governing documents may require binding arbitration of certain disputes.


HB 15-1025 — Competency To Proceed Juvenile Justice System
Sponsors: Representative Paul Rosenthal (D), Senator Linda M. Newell (D)
The bill establishes a juvenile-specific definition of “incompetent to proceed” for juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system, as well as specific definitions for “developmental disability”, “intellectual disability”, “mental capacity”, and “mental disability” when used in this context. The bill clarifies the procedures for establishing incompetency, as well as for establishing the restoration of competency.

HB 15-1216 — Basis For Expert Opinion Testimony
Sponsors: Representative Kevin Priola (R), Senator John Cooke (R)
The bill prohibits a person from testifying concerning the person’s expert opinion unless certain conditions are met.

Tenth Circuit: Allowing Recovery for Lost Horses Would Effectively Nullify State Forfeiture Proceeding

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Campbell v. City of Spencer on Tuesday, December 16, 2014.

The City of Spencer, Oklahoma, along with the Town of Forest Park and Blaze Equine Rescue seized 44 emaciated and malnourished horses from Ann Campbell’s three properties pursuant to a search warrant issued for one of the properties. The City and Town filed a joint petition in Oklahoma County District Court for forfeiture of the horses as a remedy for animal abuse. During the forfeiture proceeding, Campbell did not raise any argument regarding the scope of the search warrant. The court granted the forfeiture petition, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Campbell subsequently filed a § 1983 action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, claiming that the municipalities and Blaze had violated the Fourth Amendment in two ways: (1) by withholding from the search warrant information about Campbell’s plan to reduce the number of horses, and (2) by searching the two locations not listed on the warrant. The municipalities filed motions to dismiss on preclusion grounds, since Campbell did not raise her arguments in the state forfeiture proceeding. Blaze filed a motion for summary judgment on preclusion grounds. The district court granted the motions. Campbell appealed.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court, finding the exclusionary rule applied in Oklahoma state forfeiture proceedings and Campbell could have raised her claims in that proceeding. Campbell asserted that the state court judge refused to consider the legality of the evidence, but the Tenth Circuit reviewed the record and  found no evidence of such refusal. Campbell also suggested that suppression issues could not be raised in state court proceedings, which was an incorrect understanding of the law. Because of its conclusion that Campbell could have raised her claims in state court, the Tenth Circuit next considered whether allowing her to pursue the claims in federal court would nullify the original proceeding. The Tenth Circuit could not state with certainty whether barring the suppression would nullify the forfeiture proceeding, but found that allowing Campbell to pursue her claims would impermissibly impair the municipalities’ rights as established in the state court. The Tenth Circuit noted that allowing Campbell to recover the value of the lost horses would suggest the invalidity of the state court’s forfeiture order, and declined to allow recovery.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal as to the municipalities and grant of summary judgment as to Blaze.

e-Legislative Report: April 7, 2014

CBA Legislative Policy Committee

For readers who are new to CBA legislative activity, the Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) is the CBA’s legislative policy-making arm during the legislative session. The LPC meets weekly during the legislative session to determine CBA positions on requests from the various sections and committees of the Bar Association.

The LPC did not meet on Friday, April 4.

At the Capitol—Week of March 31

A scorecard of the committee and floor work follows.

In the House

Monday, March 31

No bills were heard on 3rd reading.

Tuesday, April 1

Passed 3rd Reading:

  • HB 14-1315. Concerning the enactment of certain model acts adopted by the national association of insurance commissioners, and, in connection therewith, enacting the credit for reinsurance model act and the portion of the insurer receivership model act that governs netting agreements. Vote: 65 yes and 0 no.
  • HB 14-1313. Concerning a requirement that the owner of a pet animal provide a valid rabies vaccination certificate prior to registering the animal with a county. Vote: 40 yes and 25 no.
  • HB 14-1045. Concerning the continuation of the breast and cervical cancer prevention and treatment program, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation. Vote: 50 yes and 15 no.
  • HB 14-1281. Concerning the allowance for terminally ill patients to have access to investigational products that have not been approved by the federal food and drug administration that other patients have access to when they participate in clinical trials. Vote: 65 yes and 0 no.
  • HB 14-1302. Concerning the addition of a judgment against a debtor or transferee who acts with actual intent as an available remedy for a creditor in a fraudulent transfer action. Vote: 65 yes and 0 no.

Wednesday, April 2

No bills were heard on 3rd reading.

Thursday, April 3

Passed 3rd Reading:

  • SB 14-135. Concerning the repeal of certain provisions concerning the purchasing of firearms in states that are contiguous to Colorado. Vote: 61 yes, 1 no, and 3 excused.

Friday, April 4

Passed on 3rd Reading:

  • SB 14-103. Concerning the phase-out of the sale of certain low efficiency plumbing fixtures. Vote: 35 yes, 28 no, and 2 excused.
  • HB 14-1001. Concerning the creation of a property tax reimbursement for a taxpayer that owes property tax on property that has been destroyed by a natural cause, and, in connection therewith, making and reducing appropriations. Vote: 46 yes, 17 no, and 2 excused.

In the Senate

Monday, March 31

Passed on 3rd Reading:

  • HB 14-1195. Concerning the diversion of revenue collected by the division of insurance to cash funds. Vote: 35 yes and 0 no.

Tuesday, April 1

Passed on 3rd Reading:

  • SB 14-163. Concerning clarifying changes to provisions related to the sentencing of persons convicted of drug crimes. Vote: 33 yes, 0 no, and 2 excused.
  • SB 14-160. Concerning removing limitations on a transitional living program for a person with a brain injury. Vote: 33 yes, 0 no, and 2 excused.
  • HB 14-1141. Concerning the confidentiality of social security numbers under statutes protecting the privacy of individuals. Vote: 33 yes, 0 no, and 2 excused.

Wednesday, April 2

No bills were heard on 3rd Reading.

Thursday, April 3

Passed on 3rd Reading:

  • The Senate spent numerous hours debating various 2nd Reading amendments to HB 14-1336. Concerning the provision for payment of the expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state of Colorado, and of its agencies and institutions, for and during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014, except as otherwise noted—“the Budget bill.”

Friday, April 4

Passed on 3rd Reading:

  • HB 14-1282. Concerning the specification of what materials may be provided in a language other than English by an insurer to a customer. Vote: 34 yes, 0 no, and 1 excused.
  • HB 14-1336. Concerning the provision for payment of the expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state of Colorado, and of its agencies and institutions, for and during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014, except as otherwise noted—“the Budget bill.” Vote: 26 yes, 8 no, and 1 excused.

Stay tuned for 10 Bills of Interest.


HB 14-1270: Continuing the Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act

On February 4, 2014, Rep. Steve Lebsock and Sen. Lois Tochtrop introduced HB 14-1270 – Concerning the Sunset Review of the Licensing of Pet Animal Facilities, and, in Connection Therewith, Continuing the Licensing Functions of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Making Substantive Changes to the Regulatory StatutesThis summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.

Sunset Process—House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee

An introduced, the bill continues the licensure of pet animal facilities by the commissioner of agriculture (commissioner) for 5 years, until 2019. It also:

  • Authorizes the commissioner to deny, revoke, or refuse to renew the license of any entity if any officer, principal owner, or other person in a position of control over the entity has been convicted of animal cruelty or animal fighting, and requires denial or revocation of a license after a second offense;
  • Directs the commissioner or the commissioner’s designees to report to law enforcement agencies and the bureau of animal protection any instance of suspected animal abuse that is discovered in the course of an investigation, and grants qualified immunity for a report made in good faith;
  • Allows the commissioner to specify, by rule, written disclosures that must be given concerning rabies vaccinations and the origin and medical history of a dog, cat, ferret, or bird;
  • Amends definitions related to small canine breeding operations to resolve potential conflicts;
  • Repeals certain existing exemptions for nonhuman primates; and
  • Increases the existing cap on license fees from $350 to $700.

On February 24 the Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources Committee amended the bill and referred it to the Finance Committee. On March 13, the Finance Committee approved the bill and sent it to the Appropriations Committee. The bill is on the Appropriations Committee calendar for Wednesday, April 2 at 7:30 a.m.