January 2017: Summaries of Published Opinions, 0317 COBJ, Vol. 46 No. 3 Pg. 127

46 Colo.Law. 127

January 2017: Summaries of Published Opinions

Vol. 46, No. 3 [Page 127]

The Colorado Lawyer

March, 2017

Colorado Supreme Court

The summaries of Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions are written for the CBA by licensed attorneys Teresa Wilkins (Englewood) and Paul Sachs (Steamboat Springs). They are provided as a service by the CBA; are not the official language of the Court; and are available only in The Colorado Lawyer and on the CBA website, www.cobar.org (click on “Opinions/Rules/Statutes”). The CBA cannot guarantee their accuracy or completeness. The full opinions, the lists of opinions not selected for official publication, the petitions for rehearing, and the modified opinions are available both on the CBA website and on the Colorado Judicial Branch website, www.courts.state.co.us (click on “Courts/Court of Appeals/Case Announcements”).

January 9, 2017

2017 CO 1. No. 16SA199. In re Marriage of Gromicko. Pleading Requirement s-CRCP 16.2-Alter Ego.

In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in ordering petitioner to produce a wide range of business records that might relate to a pending dissolution of marriage proceeding between respondent wife and husband. In the underlying dissolution proceeding, the district court granted broad discovery from petitioner, husband’s employer, based in large part on wife’s allegation that petitioner might be husband’s alter ego and thus might constitute marital property subject to equitable division Petitioner sought review of the district court’s order pursuant to CAR 21, and the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court’s discovery orders should not be vacated.

The Court made the rule absolute. As an initial matter, the Court rejected petitioner’s argument that wife was required to plead a veil-piercing claim in her petition for dissolution of marriage. The Court further concluded, however, that the district court did not take the requisite active role in managing discovery in response to petitioner’s scope objections. Specifically, although petitioner timely objected to the scope of discovery sought from it, the district court made no findings about the appropriate scope of discovery in light of the reasonable needs of the case, nor did it tailor the discovery to those needs. Accordingly, the Court vacated the portion of the district...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT