Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this interlocutory appeal, the State challenged an order suppressing incriminating statements made by Defendant Michael Lynn while in custody. The trial court held that the statements came after Defendant's unambiguous request for counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and held that Defendant's question, "When can I talk to a lawyer?" was an unambiguous request for counsel. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the order of the trial court suppressing Defendant's statements. View "Colorado v. Lynn" on Justia Law

This original proceeding before the Supreme Court arose from a divorce and parenting case in its third year of post-dissolution decree litigation. Mother's petition challenged the district court's summary denial of her motion for a protective order and sanctions concerning the acquisition by Father's attorney of Mother's entire employment file from Mother's former employer by subpoena. The Court accepted jurisdiction to determine whether Father's attorney violated C.R.C.P. 45 when she made arrangements with Mother's former employer for the production of Mother's employment file without Mother's consent and before Mother had notice of the existence of the subpoena. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court: "[The Court] interpret[ed] Rule 45 to require that, unless the subpoenaed witness and other parties consent to an alternate arrangement or by other court order, subpoenaed documents are to be produced only at the deposition, hearing, or trial specified in the subpoena and hold that the conduct of Father's attorney in this case violated Rule 45." Furthermore, the Court held that Father's attorney frustrated the purpose of Rule 45 by depriving Mother of the opportunity to object to the subpoena before the documents were produced. The Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that Father and Father's attorney identify and recover, and then return or destroy all physical and electronic copies of the documents produced by Mother's former employer pursuant to the subpoena issued by Father's attorney, including Mother's entire employment file. The Court also directed the trial court to determine whether sanctions should be awarded to Mother against Father's attorney for the rule violation. View "In re Marriage of Wiggins" on Justia Law

Prior to a foreclosure sale, Petitioner Betty Amos and her late husband, Thomas Righetti, owned a condominium unit in Aspen. Amos borrowed approximately $1.6 million from Equitable Bank securing the loan with a Deed of Trust on the condominium unit in favor of Equitable Bank and granted by Amos and Righetti. In September 2002, Righetti died. Amos and Righetti's daughter, Brandy Righetti, were named as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Thomas Righetti. The loan fell into default and Equitable Bank decided to foreclose on the property. Equitable Bank filed a Rule 120 Motion for Order Authorizing Sale and sent notice of the proceeding to Amos in her individual capacity. Equitable Bank did not send notice of the Rule 120 proceeding to the Estate or to Brandy Righetti. Neither Amos nor the Estate opposed the order authorizing sale. The public trustee held a foreclosure sale in early 2007. Neither Amos nor the Estate submitted a bid. After Equitable Bank bid the amount of its debt, three individuals Respondent Aspen Alps 123, LLC was the successful bidder. The public trustee issued the deed quieting title in the property to Aspen Alps. Amos then brought this action against the public trustee and Equitable Bank to enjoin the issuance of the deed to Aspen Alps, and to compel the trustee to allow her to redeem. Concurrently, she filed a notice of lis pendens. When the trial court refused to grant a preliminary injunction in Amos' favor, she filed a second notice of lis pendens. Amos then amended her complaint to include a claim that Equitable Bank failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of Rule 120. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the parties received actual notice which afforded them an opportunity to present their objections and no prejudice resulted. Accordingly, the Court refused to disturb the completed foreclosure sale. View "Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC Real Property" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court was asked to respond to a certified question posed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. The question arose out of an adversary proceeding in which the plaintiff, in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee, sought to assert his "strong arm" powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) to avoid the defendants' security interest in the debtor's property and to recover the property for the benefit of the estate. At the time the bankruptcy petition was filed, the defendants' security interest was documented in a deed of trust that was recorded and properly indexed in the City and County of Denver, where the encumbered property is located. The recorded deed identified the encumbered property by a correct and complete street address and expressly referred to an attached legal description of the property. The recorded deed, however, omitted the referenced attachment. The Trustee contended that because the recorded deed of trust did not contain a legal description of the encumbered property, it failed to provide sufficient notice of the defendants' security interest to a subsequent purchaser of the property under sections 38-35-109(1) and 38-35-122, C.R.S. (2011). The Supreme Court held that, under the circumstances of this case, actual knowledge could not be imputed to the trustee, and the deed of trust did not otherwise provide sufficient notice of the defendant's security interest in the debtor's property. The supreme court answered the certified question in the negative and returned the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado for further proceedings. View "Sender v. Cygan" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court concerned whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a district court order dismissing a misdemeanor charge in a county court case that was improperly transferred to the district court in violation of a chief judge's order governing such transfers within the judicial district. "While it is questionable whether the district court had jurisdiction to dismiss the county court charge," the Court nevertheless held that the only forum for an initial appeal of such a dismissal is in the court of appeals because it is a final judgment of the district court. The Court noted that to hold otherwise would render this "important issue of the respect owed to a controlling chief judge's order" unreviewable. Accordingly, the Court held that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over this appeal. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to review the district court's dismissal on the merits. View "Colorado v. Maser" on Justia Law

The prosecution brought this interlocutory appeal seeking to reverse the trial court's ruling that suppressed evidence obtained from the search of the apartment of the Defendant Andrian Arapu. Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") agents sought to contact Defendant, suspecting he was in the country illegally. In accordance with their standard protocol, ICE requested assistance from local law enforcement. When federal agents contacted Defendant, he refused to give them permission to enter his apartment, but he consented to the local detective entering the apartment to monitor a woman already inside. When the federal agents were arrested Defendant, he gave his consent to the local detective to gather his keys and phones, and to secure the apartment. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a suspect who consented to a law enforcement officer entering his dwelling to monitor another person inside permits the law enforcement officer to ask the monitored person for identifying information. Further, the Court held that a suspect who consents to a law enforcement officer remaining inside his dwelling to gather belongings and to secure the dwelling, permits the law enforcement officer to remain in the apartment until all law enforcement personnel have left the dwelling. Thus, the Court reversed the district court's suppression of the drug-related evidence, and reversed the district court's suppression of a firearm because it would have been discovered in a search pursuant to a warrant supported by a redacted affidavit that independently established probable cause to search the apartment for drug-related evidence. Accordingly, the case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Arapu" on Justia Law

After losing on her Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim at the county court, Elizabeth Flood's trial counsel, Gary Merenstein, paid the fees of several appellate attorneys who represented Flood in an appeal to the district court and later to the Supreme Court because they were not willing to work on a contingency basis. Flood ultimately prevailed in her appeal, and the Supreme Court awarded attorneys' fees. On remand to the county court to determine Flood's entitlement to and the amount of the attorneys' fees, the opposing party, debt collector Mercantile Adjustment Bureau(MAB), argued that Flood was not entitled to receive attorneys' fees for her appellate counsel's work. MAB argued that the arrangement between Merenstein and Flood, wherein he agreed to pay her appellate attorneys' fees and expected to be reimbursed for these fees from any court award of attorneys' fees received by Flood, constituted unethical financial assistance of a client in violation of Rule 1.8(e) of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The county court rejected MAB's argument and awarded Flood the requested attorneys' fees. MAB appealed to the district court, which affirmed the county court. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Merenstein did not violate Rule 1.8(e) by paying the fees of Flood's appellate counsel and therefore affirmed the district court's decision in part. However, the Court concluded that the district court erred in applying the Colorado Appellate Rules, which require an appellee to make her request for attorneys' fees in her answer brief, to an appeal to the district court from the county court. The Court reversed that part of the district court's ruling applying the Colorado Appellate Rules to deny Flood's request for attorneys' fees incurred in the current appeal. The case was remanded to the district court to return it to the county court for proceedings to determine whether Flood was entitled to appellate fees as the prevailing party in this appeal and, if so, the amount of Flood's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this appeal—including the proceedings before the Supreme Court. View "Mercantile Adjustment Bureau v. Flood" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue before the Supreme Court came from an unpublished opinion by the court of appeals reversing the trial court's allocation of primary parental responsibilities to the half-sister of a minor child on grounds that the sister lacked standing to petition for an allocation of parental responsibilities. The court of appeals construed sections14-10-123(1)(b) and (1)(c), C.R.S. (2011), as requiring that, in order to establish standing to petition for an allocation of parental responsibilities, a nonparent must show that the child's parents voluntarily permitted the nonparent to assume responsibility for or share in the child's care. The Court held that parental consent is not required for nonparent standing. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the court of appeals for consideration of the remaining issues raised on appeal. View "In the Interest of Child: B.B.O." on Justia Law

In 2006,Jefferson County purchased securities through Capital Securities, Inc., Jerry Manning, and Adam Alves a purchase later determined unlawful under section 24-75-601.1, C.R.S. (2008). The county sued Capital Securities and, among other things, sought to disgorge the commissions earned by Capital Securities under a theory of common law restitution. Both the trial court and the court of appeals concluded that restitution was appropriate and ordered Capital Securities to disgorge their commissions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to examine whether restitution is an appropriate remedy in this context. Upon review, the Court held that it was not, and reversed the court of appeals: "The statutory scheme adopted by the General Assembly expressly sets forth a number of remedies available to a public entity against a seller when . . .the public entity unlawfully purchases securities under section 24-75-601.1. These remedies include forcing the seller to repurchase the securities 'for the greater of the original purchase principal amount or the original face value, plus any and all accrued interest, within one business day of the demand.' . . . Further, the securities commissioner may, inter alia, suspend or revoke a seller's license or license exemption if he 'knew or should have known' the securities were unlawful under section 24-75-601.1. sec. 11-51-410(k), C.R.S. (2011); sec. 11-51-402(4)(a), C.R.S. (2011)." View "Capital Securities, Inc. v. Griffin" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether section 38-5-105 C.R.S. (2011) granted condemnation authority to a company for the construction of a petroleum pipeline. Upon review, the Court concluded that the General Assembly did not grant expressly or implication, the power of eminent domain to companies for the construction of pipelines conveying petroleum. Therefore, section 38-5-105 did not grant that authority to Respondent Sinclair Transportation Company for its proposed pipeline project. The Court reversed the court of appeals' opinion that upheld the trial court's order granting Sinclair immediate possession of the property belonging to Petitioners Ivar and Donna Larson and Lauren and Kay Sandberg. View "Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co." on Justia Law