Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2018/05/24/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:50:07+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in State of Colorado ex rel. Coffman v. Robert J. Hopp & Associates, LLC on Thursday, May 17, 2018.
Foreclosure Commitments—Colorado Consumer Protection Act—Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—Deceptive Trade Practices—Statute of Limitations—Title Insurance Policy—Cancellation Fee—Civil Penalties—Evidence.
Hopp is an attorney whose law firms provided legal services for mortgage defaults, including residential foreclosures, in Colorado. Hopp also owned businesses that supported the law firms’ foreclosure services, including National Title, LLC and First National Title Residential, LLC, which provided foreclosure commitments for the law firms. National Title and First National Title Residential issued title commitments and policies through an underwriter, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Fidelity). Fidelity had a Division of Insurance (DOI)-approved manual that set forth rates and charges for foreclosure commitments.
While representing loan servicers, the law firms typically ordered foreclosure commitments from Hopp’s title companies. National Title invoiced the law firms a charge of 110% of the schedule of basic rates upon the delivery of a foreclosure commitment. As a routine practice, within 10 days of filing a foreclosure action, the law firms passed this cost on to the servicers by billing and seeking reimbursement from them for the charge of 110% of the schedule of basic rates, even though this cost may not have actually been incurred.
The State of Colorado ex rel. Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, and Julie Ann Meade, Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code (collectively, plaintiffs) sued Hopp, his law firms, his affiliated title companies, and his business that provided accounting and bookkeeping services for the law firms and title companies (collectively, defendants), alleging that defendants violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) and the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA) by engaging in the billing practices described above. The district court found in favor of plaintiffs and imposed penalties of $624,000.
On appeal, defendants contended that the trial court erred by imposing penalties under the CCPA and the CFDCPA because they were barred by the one-year limitation period in C.R.S. § 13-80-103(1)(d) and C.R.S. § 5-16-113(5) (CFDCPA claims), and C.R.S. § 6-1-115 (CCPA claims). Because the CCPA contains a statute of limitations specifically addressing cases brought under its provisions, the three-year statute of limitations controls over the more general C.R.S. § 13-80-103(1)(d). Further, because the CFDCPA did not contain a clear statute of limitations applying to government enforcement actions at the times relevant to this action, a catch-all provision applies requiring the government to file any claims within one year of discovery, which was done in this case. Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that the CFDCPA claims were timely filed.
Defendants next contended that the trial court erred when it concluded that they violated the CCPA and the CFDCPA by charging 110% of the schedule of basic rates for foreclosure commitment required by Fidelity’s rates on file with the DOI. This was the same amount that Fidelity’s manual listed as the charge for a completed title insurance policy, even in cases where the policy would never be issued because the foreclosure was cured or cancelled. Defendants did not charge amounts in compliance with Fidelity’s filed rates because they required payment from servicers even when a title insurance policy was never issued. The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that defendants misrepresented the premium charges as actually incurred costs. Therefore, the trial court did not err.
Defendants also contended that the trial court erred when it concluded that they knowingly engaged in a deceptive trade practice. Here, the trial court’s finding that defendants acted knowingly was supported by evidence in the record.
Defendants next argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted plaintiffs’ Exhibit 103 and relied on it in assessing civil penalties against defendants. Exhibit 103 is a 1,114-page spreadsheet compiling electronic invoicing data submitted by Hopp’s law firms through a billing software to the servicers from 2008 until the time of trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Exhibit 103 as a business record under CRE 803(6).
Plaintiffs contended on cross-appeal that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted defendants’ Exhibit 1093 to rebut plaintiffs’ Exhibit 104. At times, servicers directed the law firms to order foreclosure commitments from LSI Default Title and Closing (LSI), instead of from one of Hopp’s affiliated title companies. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims for defendants’ violation of the CCPA and CFDCPA through conduct regarding the LSI transactions. Exhibit 104 reflected that LSI appeared to charge defendants only $350 for title commitments ordered, which was representative of a cancellation fee. Exhibit 1093 was an email from an LSI representative to Hopp’s wife, which included an attached spreadsheet showing charges for full policy premiums rather than outstanding charges of $350. There were “unusual and unexplained adjustments” to Exhibit 104, and the trial court declined to place any weight on the exhibit in its final order and concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove their claim based on the LSI transactions. Here, there was a proper foundation for admitting Exhibit 1093, and given the late addition of the LSI claim and the parameters of the claim set forth in the plaintiffs’ written notice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exclude Exhibit 1093 as a sanction for defendants’ failure to supplement their mandatory disclosures at a late point in litigation.
Both parties requested an award of attorney fees and costs incurred in this appeal. Plaintiffs, but not defendants, are entitled to an award.
The judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded with directions.
Bankruptcy—Attorney Fees—Colorado Consumer Protection Act—Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—Civil Penalty—Reasonableness—Groundless.
The State brought an action alleging that Hopp and his wife Lori Hopp, and Hopp’s law firms and affiliated companies, violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) and the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA) (see 2018 COA 69, No. 16CA1983, State of Colorado v. Robert J. Hopp & Associates, LLC). The district court entered judgment against Hopp and in favor of plaintiffs, but concluded there was insufficient evidence to find Lori Hopp liable for any alleged misconduct. The trial court also awarded plaintiffs most of their reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the enforcement action under the CCPA and CFDCPA.
On appeal, Hopp contended that the trial court erred when it imposed an award of attorney fees and costs against him because it was precluded from doing so by his discharge of debts in bankruptcy. Hopp filed for bankruptcy in January 2013 and obtained a discharge in February 2014. Plaintiffs’ enforcement action was filed 10 months later. Hopp argued that the bankruptcy discharge applied to any claim for attorney fees and costs that could have been fairly or reasonably contemplated during the bankruptcy case. The trial court’s attorney fee awards under the CCPA and CFDCPA are not dischargeable, and the Court of Appeals declined to order that they be vacated as void under 11 U.S.C. § 5243.
Hopp further contended that the trial court erred when it failed to reduce plaintiffs’ attorney fees award by the amount of any fees incurred for their unpursued and unsuccessful claims. Because plaintiffs’ claims involved a common core of facts and were brought under the same legal theories, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce plaintiffs’ attorney fees.
Lori Hopp contended that the trial court erred in rejecting her argument that she was entitled to her attorney fees and costs under C.R.S. §§ 13-17-101 to -106 for defending against plaintiffs’ eventually unsuccessful claims against her. The trial court’s decision that plaintiffs’ CCPA claim against Lori Hopp was not substantially groundless was not manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to award her attorney fees.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Bell v. Land Title Guarantee Co. on Thursday, May 17, 2018.
Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date.
The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn’t know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn’t contain any language reserving the Bells’ mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner’s royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn’t own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn’t reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells’ claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants’ motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn’t begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn’t reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years from the date the cause of action accrues, and contract actions within three years from the date the cause of action accrues. A cause of action accrues on the date that “both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” The trial court relied on the legal principle that one who signs a document is presumed to know its contents, so the Bells should have known on the day they signed the deed that the mineral rights reservation language was not included, and thus their claims accrued on that date. However, the presumed-to-know principle applies conclusively only where a party (for example, a grantor) seeks to avoid the legal effects of a deed in an action against another party to the conveyance (a grantee), not where a party (a grantor) asserts claims against third parties who failed to conform the deed to an underlying agreement on that party’s behalf. Here, the Bells claims against defendants, who aren’t parties to the deed, don’t seek to avoid the deed, but seek damages for negligent preparation of the deed, and the purpose of the presumed-to-know principle isn’t applicable. Taking the complaint’s factual allegations as true, the Bells filed their negligence and breach of contract claims within the statute of limitations and stated a plausible claim for relief. The court erred in granting defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The order of dismissal was reversed.
On Thursday, May 24, 2018, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 33 unpublished opinions.
On Thursday, May 24, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions.
On Wednesday, May 23, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

References: v. 
 § 13
 § 5
 § 6
 § 13
 v. 
 § 5243
 v.