Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2016/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 07:00:08+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of R.K.L. on Thursday, May 19, 2016.
Involuntary Administration of Medication—Due Process—Clear and Convincing Evidence.
On request of the People, R.K.L., a/k/a A.J.J., was found to be mentally ill and a danger to others and gravely disabled, and was certified to Colorado Mental Health Institute at Fort Logan for short-term treatment for a period not to exceed three months. The probate court also authorized involuntary administration for 11 requested antipsychotic medications. Before the expiration of that order, the People filed a notice extending the certification for treatment for an additional three months and a motion to extend the involuntary medication order. The probate court, following a hearing, extended the certification for short-term treatment and granted the motion for continued involuntary administration authority for the requested medications.
A.J.J. appealed both orders. He conceded that the People had established by clear and convincing evidence that he has a mental illness and that he has not voluntarily accepted treatment. He argued that the court erred in finding that the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that he is a danger to others or gravely disabled. The Court of Appeals held that the probate court’s finding that A.J.J. is a danger to others was supported by evidence in the record. Alternatively, the Court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the probate court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence that A.J.J was gravely disabled as a result of his mental illness. Sufficient evidence supports the probate court’s orders upholding the certification and extended certification of A.J.J. for short-term treatment.
To involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication without violating a patient’s due process rights, all four elements set forth in People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961, 973 (Colo. 1985), must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found that the evidence did not support the probate court’s findings as to two of these elements regarding involuntary administration of 10 of the medications, but the evidence was sufficient to support the administration of one medication. The Court agreed with A.J.J. that the evidence did not support the court’s findings that (1) the People had established by clear and convincing evidence that there was no less intrusive alternative than administering the 10 antipsychotics and (2) A.J.J.’s need for treatment with the 10 antipsychotic medications overrode his bona fide and legitimate interest in refusing this treatment.
The orders were reversed to the extent that they authorized involuntary administration of 10 antipsychotics and affirmed in all other respects.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Reishus v. Bullmasters, LLC on Thursday, May 19, 2016.
Tenancy in Common—Declaratory Judgment—Covenant—Runs with the Land.
Adams Ranch is a property owned by tenants in common. Plaintiffs are some of the owners who are the appointed managers of the ranch; they brought a declaratory judgment action after defendants (other owners) objected to an amendment to an ownership agreement restricting hunting rights at the ranch.
In 2011, an amendment limiting hunting days per fraction of ownership was adopted by 7/12ths of the ownership interests. Defendants disputed the validity of the hunting limitation, asserting that it improperly restricted their possessory and use rights as tenants in common, which cannot be restricted without their consent. The district court held that the hunting restriction was validly adopted and binding on all owners.
On appeal, defendants first argued that one group of co-owners in a tenancy in common cannot limit the possessory rights of other co-owners without their unanimous consent. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendants that each tenant in a tenancy in common is entitled to equal use and possession of the property. However, it also found that tenants in common can contract otherwise and that there is no necessity of unanimous consent where co-owners contract such entitlement in the ownership agreements. The Court concluded that the co-owners of the ranch validly contracted to allow restrictions on their possessory rights and to allow those restrictions if approved by 7/12ths of the ownership interests.
Defendants also argued that the 2007 Amended Agreement was not a real covenant binding on the parties and their successors in interest. The Court disagreed, noting the explicit language in the 2007 Amended Agreement stating that it bound successors and ran with the land.
On Thursday, May 26, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and five unpublished opinions.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Estate of Ramstetter on Thursday, May 19, 2016.
Louise Ramstetter devised her ranch to her daughters, Jeanne, Marie, and Karol, “in equal shares to be held as joint tenants.” Louise died in 2009 and Marie and Karol, as personal representatives, began administering the estate. Three years later, Jeanne petitioned to remove Marie and Karol as personal representatives and for a declaratory judgment that she had severed the joint tenancy among the sisters, creating a tenancy in common as to her one-third of the ranch by deeding her interest to a trust she had created. Marie and Karol cross-petitioned to enforce a 2012 Agreement and Release in which they had agreed to convey 35 acres of the ranch to Jeanne and she had agreed to convey the remainder of the ranch to them, with all other claims being released. They also sought reformation of the will based on the failure of the attorney who drafted the will to have implemented Louise’s intent to keep ownership of the ranch within the family.
The trial court granted Jeanne’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the will unambiguous. It accepted the parties’ position that application of CRS § 15-11-806, which allows a court to reform an unambiguous instrument “to conform the terms to the transferor’s intention” based on clear and convincing evidence that the “transferor’s intent and the terms of the governing instrument were affected by a mistake of fact or law,” was determined by CRS § 15-17-101(2), but concluded that CRS § 15-17-101(2) did not make CRS § 15-11-806 applicable because Louise had died before the latter section became effective. Moreover, it found that the reformation claim depended wholly on extrinsic evidence of Louise’s intent, and therefore dismissed it. The court found that the Agreement and Release was “invalid as a result of mutual mistake among the parties to it” and that Jeanne had severed the joint tenancy by the conveyance to her trust.
On appeal, Karol and Marie first argued that the trial court improperly dismissed their claim for reformation of Louise’s will. CRS § 15-11-806 amended the probate code to allow reformation of an unambiguous instrument. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that CRS § 15-11-806 cannot be applied retroactively in this case, but on different grounds: The Court found that CRS § 15-17-101(2)(b), which would allow retroactive application of CRS § 15-11-806, does not apply here because CRS § 15-17-101(2)(a) applies only to governing instruments and therefore controls over the more general subsection (2)(b) and does not provide a basis for retroactively applying CRS § 15-11-806. Also, CRS § 15-17-101(2)(e) does not allow retroactive application of CRS § 15-11-806 because CRS § 15-11-806 is not a rule of construction and therefore 2(e) doesn’t apply. Because CRS § 15-17-101(2)(a) and (b) do not permit retroactive application, the trial court properly precluded Karol and Marie from attempting to reform Louise’s will using extrinsic evidence of her intent under CRS §15-11-806. Karol and Marie also argued that the court improperly invoked stare decisis when dismissing their reformation claim. Because the terms of the will were unambiguous, the court properly did not admit extrinsic evidence to establish a contrary intent to that expressed in her will.
Karol and Marie then argued that the trial court misapplied the mutual mistake doctrine and erred in declining to enforce the Agreement and Release because all the sisters were mutually mistaken that only a contract among them could sever the joint tenancy. The Court reviewed the trial court decision for clear error and found sufficient support in the record to uphold its conclusion that all three sisters held the same mistaken belief. The Court also rejected Karol and Marie’s arguments that other findings of the trial court were irreconcilably inconsistent with the finding of mutual mistake.
The orders dismissing the reformation claim and voiding the Agreement and Release for mutual mistake were affirmed.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Mountain States Adjustment v. Cooke on Thursday, May 19, 2016.
Summary Judgment—Debt Collection—Choice of Law Provision.
CFB merged into Bank of the West, a California bank, in December 2005. Cooke’s repayment terms under the Note didn’t change as a result nor was he asked to sign a new agreement. In April 2009, the company holding the first mortgage on the subject property commenced foreclosure proceedings. Bank of the West did not participate, but on June 19, 2009, Bank of the West sent a “30 Day Notice of Demand and Intent to Accelerate” letter to Cooke.
On February 14, 2014, Bank of the West assigned Cooke’s note to Mountain States Adjustment (MSA). On July 15, 2014, MSA filed this collection action against Cooke in Denver District Court. Cooke answered and alleged an affirmative defense that MSA’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
In January 2015, MSA filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that Cooke admitted to being the signatory under the Note and that the facts were undisputed that he was in default. Cooke filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asserting that MSA’s claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations set forth in Nebraska law. The district court decided that Colorado law and its six-year statute of limitations applied and entered summary judgment in MSA’s favor. The sole issue on appeal was whether it was error to hold that Colorado law applied.
The Court of Appeals found the choice of law terms in the Note were clear, express, and unambiguous. As a matter of law, Nebraska law governs the statute of limitations issue because the undisputed record shows both that Nebraska had a substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and that there was a reasonable basis for the contracting parties’ choice of law. Because it was undisputed that MSA filed its complaint outside of the applicable Nebraska limitations period, MSA’s claim was barred and Cooke was entitled to entry of judgment in his favor.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 § 15
 §15
 v.