Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2014/03/17/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:04:28+00:00

Document:
On Monday, March 17, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court issued three published opinions.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Mendoza v. Pioneer General Insurance Co. on Thursday, March 13, 2014.
Surety Bond Recovery—Declaratory Judgment—Colorado Consumer Protection Act Fraud Claim.
In March 2009, plaintiffs Mendoza and Gonzales bought an action against Fitzgerald Automotive Group, alleging a claim that Fitzgerald violated CRS § 6-1-708, a provision of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) that expressly prohibits motor vehicle dealers from engaging in certain specified deceptive trade practices. After a trial to a jury, the jury found in favor of plaintiffs on their CCPA claim and also found in a special interrogatory that Fitzgerald had engaged in bad-faith conduct under CRS § 6-1-113(2)(a)(III), which allows for an award of treble damages. Judgment was entered in the amount of $3,500, which was trebled. The court also awarded attorney fees of $15,475 and costs of $436.61.
Fitzgerald then ceased operations and plaintiffs were not able to recover on their judgment. They brought this action against Pioneer General Insurance Company (Pioneer), requesting a declaratory judgment that the motor vehicle dealer’s licensing bond required by CRS § 12-6-111 “is available to consumers who have been damaged by car dealers that commit deceptive trade practices . . . and that the bond is applicable to costs and attorney fees incurred by the consumer. . . .” The district court denied the motion.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued the district court erred because the county court’s judgment was a final determination of fraud or fraudulent representation that was sufficient to satisfy CRS § 12-6-111(2)(b). The Court of Appeals agreed.
Plaintiffs argued that CRS §§ 6-1-708 and 12-6-111 should be read together to accomplish their legislative purpose of providing remedies for consumer fraud. The Court held that § 6-1-708(1)(a)(I) has “at the very least, the element of an intent to deceive.” In essence, the Court found that a prohibited deceptive trade practice requires, as a matter of law, an intent to deceive, which, if found guilty of so doing, is a determination of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation sufficient to satisfy CRS § 12-6-111(2)(b).
The Court also found that because the CCPA specifically authorizes the recovery of costs and reasonable attorney fees, plaintiffs can recover those fees and costs from Pioneer, as the surety on the bond, in addition to their actual damages of $3,500. Accordingly, the judgment denying plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.
The Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the retirement of Hon. Lyndon K. Skinner of the Sixth Judicial District. Judge Skinner attended the University of Colorado from 1960 to 1965, joined the Army in 1965 and served until 1971, and then served on the Colorado State Patrol until 1997. In 1997, he was appointed as a municipal judge in Silverton, Colorado, and was appointed to the San Juan County Court in 2006. He is one of the few non-attorney judges serving in Colorado. His retirement will be effective July 1, 2014.
Applications are being accepted for the vacancy on the San Juan County Court bench. Eligible applicants must be qualified electors of San Juan County and must have graduated high school or achieved the equivalent. Application forms are available from the ex officio chair of the Sixth Judicial District Nominating Commission, Justice Brian Boatright, and are also available on the State Judicial website. Applications must be filed no later than 4 p.m. on April 14, 2014. Anyone wishing to nominate a candidate must do so no later than 4 p.m. on April 7, 2014.
Click here for more information about the judicial vacancy.

References: v. 
 § 6
 § 6
 § 12
 § 12
 § 6
 § 12