CO Code § 13-1-127 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 1 - General Provisions|Part 1 - Administrative Provisions|§ 13-1-127. Entities - School Districts - Legislative Declaration - Representation - Definitions

  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:   “Closely held entity” means an entity, as defined in section 7-90-102 (20), C.R.S., with no more than three owners.  (a.2) “Cooperative” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (9) , C.R.S.   (a.5) “Corporate licensed child placement agency” means an entity that places, or arranges for placement of, the care of any child with any family, person, or institution other than persons related to said child and that is licensed by the department of human services pursuant to section 26-6-104 , C.R.S., as a child placement agency.     “Corporation” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (10), C.R.S.    “Entity” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (20), C.R.S.    “Limited liability company” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (32), C.R.S.    “Limited partnership” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (34), C.R.S.    “Limited partnership association” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (35), C.R.S.    “Nonprofit association” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (38), C.R.S.    “Nonprofit corporation” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (39), C.R.S.    “Officer” means a person generally or specifically authorized by an entity to take any action contemplated by this section.    “Owner” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 7-90-102 (43), C.R.S.    “School district” means a school district organized and existing pursuant to law but does not include a local college district.    “Truancy proceedings” means judicial proceedings for the enforcement of the “School Attendance Law of 1963”, article 33 of title 22, C.R.S., brought pursuant to section 22-33-108, C.R.S.       Except as otherwise provided in section 13-6-407, a closely held entity may be represented before any court of record or any administrative agency by an officer of such closely held entity if:   The amount at issue in the controversy or matter before the court or agency does not exceed fifteen thousand dollars, exclusive of costs, interest, or statutory penalties, on and after August 7, 2013; and    The officer provides the court or agency, at or prior to the trial or hearing, with evidence satisfactory to the court or agency of the authority of the officer to appear on behalf of the closely held entity in all matters within the jurisdictional limits set forth in this section. (2.3) For the purposes of this section, each of the following persons shall be presumed to have the authority to appear on behalf of the closely held entity upon providing evidence of the person's holding the specified office or status:   An officer of a cooperative, corporation, or nonprofit corporation;    A general partner of a partnership or of a limited partnership;    A person in whom the management of a limited liability company is vested or reserved; and    A member of a limited partnership association. (2.5)   The general assembly hereby finds and determines that the practice of law should not include the representation of a corporation in workers' compensation proceedings by an authorized employee of such corporation. While the general assembly respectfully recognizes the jurisdiction of the supreme court with respect to the regulation of the practice of law, it hereby finds and declares that the representation of a corporation in workers' compensation cases by an authorized employee of that corporation does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The general assembly has determined that the decision of a president or secretary of a corporation to have a corporate employee represent the corporation in a workers' compensation case is a business decision made voluntarily and knowingly by persons who are qualified and accustomed to making business decisions. The general assembly has further determined that allowing such representation will not hamper the orderly and proper disposition of workers' compensation cases and may expedite and facilitate such disposition. An employee of a defendant corporation with experience in the operations of such corporation and knowledge of the necessary facts and law can afford a defendant corporation with representation which is the substantial equivalent to, and may in some cases, be more effective than, a licensed attorney. The general assembly hereby declares that the protections afforded by the restrictions set forth by the supreme court with respect to the unauthorized practice of law are unnecessary for the described form of representation because the general public is not likely to be harmed by such representation. Further, the general assembly respectfully recommends that the supreme court adopt rules which permit and regulate such representation in which event the general assembly may choose to repeal this statute in deference to the supreme court's rules.    Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section concerning the amount at issue, any corporation which is in compliance with the requirements otherwise imposed on corporations by law may be represented by any employee of the corporation who is so authorized by the president or secretary of such corporation, in proceedings authorized under the “Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado”, articles 40 to 47 of title 8, C.R.S., exclusive of proceedings before the industrial claim appeals office under part 3 of article 43 of title 8, C.R.S., appeals to the court of appeals under section 8-43-307, C.R.S., and summary reviews by the supreme court under section 8-43-313, C.R.S.             The court may rely upon a written resolution of a closely held entity that allows a named officer to appear in the closely held entity's behalf.    A closely held entity's exercise of the option authorized by this section to be represented by an officer shall not alone be construed to establish personal liability of the representing officer or any other officer, director, owner, or shareholder for action taken by that closely held entity.    A corporate licensed child placement agency, as defined in paragraph (a.5) of subsection (1) of this section, that is in compliance with the requirements otherwise imposed on closely held entities by law, may be represented by any named officer or designated agent of the agency in any proceeding involving the termination of the parent-child relationship pursuant to the “Colorado Children's Code”, title 19, C.R.S., or in any proceeding involving a petition for adoption pursuant to section 19-5-208, C.R.S.    Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to restrict the classes of persons who, or circumstances in which persons, may be represented by other persons, or may appear in person, before Colorado courts or administrative agencies.      A school district board of education may authorize, by resolution, one or more employees of the school district to represent the school district in truancy proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction; except that the authorization of the board of education shall not extend to representation of the school district before a court of appeals or before the Colorado supreme court.    A court may rely on the written resolution of the school district board of education that authorizes the named employee to represent the school district in truancy proceedings.    An authorized employee who represents a school district in truancy proceedings pursuant to the provisions of this subsection (7) shall not be subject to the provisions of section 13-93-108.    A school district board of education's exercise of the option authorized by this section to be represented in truancy proceedings by an employee shall not alone be construed to establish personal liability of the representing employee or any other employee or a school director of the school district for action taken by the school district.        History. Source: L. 83: Entire section added, p. 598, § 1, effective May 25. L. 84: (1)(c) amended, p. 450, § 1, effective March 16. L. 90: IP(2) and (2)(a) amended, p. 849, § 3, effective May 31; (2)(a) amended, p. 854, § 1, effective July 1. L. 91: (2.5) added, p. 1285, § 1, effective April 14. L. 92: (1)(a.5) and (5) added, pp. 179, 180, §§ 2, 3, effective March 20; (2.5) amended, p. 276, § 1, effective April 14. L. 94: (1)(a.5) amended, p. 2639, § 85, effective July 1. L. 98: (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) amended and (2.3) and (6) added, p. 489, § 1, effective February 1, 1999. L. 2007: (1)(k), (1)(l), and (7) added, pp. 165, 164, §§ 2, 1, effective March 22. L. 2013: (2)(a) amended,(HB 13-1052), ch. 40, p. 111, § 1, effective August 7. L. 2017: (7)(c) amended,(SB 17-227), ch. 192, p. 704, § 4, effective August 9.    Cross references:    For representation of corporations in the small claims division of county court, see § 13-6-407.    For the legislative declaration contained in the 1990 act amending the introductory portion to subsection (2) and subsection (2)(a), see section 1 of chapter 100, Session Laws of Colorado 1990. For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending subsection (1)(a.5), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994.     ANNOTATION   Assuming that defendant church existed as a de facto corporation, if the pastor were recognized as a corporate officer, the pastor could represent the defendant in court. Where there was no showing that the pastor was a corporate officer, however, the pastor could not represent the defendant church. People v. LaPorte Church of Christ, 830 P.2d 1150 (Colo. App. 1992).   Trial court erred in permitting non-attorney manager to represent limited liability company (LLC) since LLC could not satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of the statutory exception in subsection (2). Weston v. T&T, LLC, 271 P.3d 552 (Colo. App. 2011).   LLC not entitled to a new trial, however, because any error in permitting non-attorney manager to represent LLC was invited by LLC. Weston v. T&T, LLC, 271 P.3d 552 (Colo. App. 2011).   Applied in Keller Corp. v. Kelley, 187 P.3d 1133 (Colo. App. 2008).