Chapter 1 - § 1.12 • MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS OF JURISDICTION

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 1.12 • MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS OF JURISDICTION

While it had been held under prior law that a county court under its statutory power to order specific performance of a contract of sale of real estate could not reform it, and that it was without power to enforce a contract among heirs to convey their respective interests in property to one of them, it would appear that a court could do so under the provisions of the Code.⁷⁵

It is the practice in many states to have the court of probate fix inheritance taxes since the estate already is in administration in that court, unless it happens that the tax is due in a situation in which there is no probate administration, as in the case of an estate entirely in joint tenancy or entirely in an inter vivos trust. Prior to repeal of the inheritance tax in 1980, Colorado followed this practice.

While before the Code the question of whether to transmit the proceeds of ancillary administration to the domicile for distribution was in the discretion of the court of ancillary administration, the Code has changed this rule by making the ancillary and domiciliary administration, to a large extent, a single unit.⁷⁶

Federal courts have no probate jurisdiction as such, but they may give relief in personam in diversity suits.⁷⁷

Several cases have dealt with the issue of the extent to which civil courts will defer to religious law. See Wolf v. Rose Hill Cemetery Ass'n and Marriage of Popak.⁷⁸

See also Gilford v. People⁷⁹ (extent to which procedural defects, as a matter of constitutional law, deprive a trial court of jurisdiction in long-term civil commitment cases).

See also In re A.R.D. and K.F.D.⁸⁰ (probate court has jurisdiction in guardianship of minor proceedings also to determine restrictions on parenting time and child support).

See also Estate of Masden.⁸¹ The suit was by a real estate homeowners' association against a competing association. The personal representative was sued for an order for a transfer of a portion of the decedent's property to the association. While the probate court dealt with the issue involving the personal representative, the probate court did not have jurisdiction to determine the ownership rights of the surrounding property as between the associations and the neighboring lot owners.

See also In re Marriage of Ludwig⁸² (the divorce court exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the husband breached his duty as custodian of Uniform Transfers to Minors Act account and removing him. The divorce...