June 2016: Summaries of Published Opinions, 0816 COBJ, Vol. 45, No. 8 Pg. 117

45 Colo.Law. 117

June 2016: Summaries of Published Opinions

Vol. 45, No. 8 [Page 117]

The Colorado Lawyer

August, 2016

Colorado Supreme Court

The summaries of Colorado Supreme Court published opinions are provided by the Court; the CBA cannot guarantee their accuracy or completeness. Both the summaries and full opinions, as well as the lists of petitions for rehearing and certiorari and the granted original proceedings pursuant to the Colorado Appellate Rules, are available on the CBA website, www.cobar.org (click on “For Members” and then “Opinions/Rules/Statutes”), and on the Colorado Judicial Branch website, www.courts.state.co.us (click on “Courts/Supreme Court/Case Announcements”).

June 20, 2016

2016 CO 44. No. 14SC998. Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Board v. Freeman. Statutory Interpretation-State Agencies-Motor Vehicles.

The Supreme Court considered whether a person who commits third degree assault on an at-risk adult under CRS §§ 18-3-204 and 18-6.5-103(3)(c) is disqualified from obtaining a motor vehicle salesperson’s license under CRS § 12-6-118(7)(a)(I). The Court held that because the felony enhancement provision does not create a separate offense, Freeman was convicted of a “felony in violation of article 3 . . . of title 18, ” CRS § 12-6-118(7)(a)(I), and therefore the Colorado Motor Vehicle Dealer Board properly denied his application for a motor vehicle salesperson’s license. The Court of Appeals’ judgment was reversed.

2016 CO 45. No. 13SC768. Hutchins v. La Plata Mountain Resources, Inc Limitations of Actions-Acknowledgments of Existing Debt-Form and Essential Elements of Acknowledgments.

Hutchins and Gasper petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming the district court’s ruling in favor of La Plata Mountain Resources, Inc. (La Plata), in an action brought by La Plata to collect on certain debentures issued by Leadville Mining and foreclose on a deed of trust securing the debts. Although Leadville’s authorized agent had signed documents ac knowledging its obligations for the amounts owed on other similar debentures held by Hutchins and Gasper, which were secured by the same deed of trust, the Court of Appeals reasoned that be cause these documents lacked the two-thirds consent required for modification of the debentures, the included acknowledgments were insufficient to restart the applicable limitations period. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that the statute of limitations had run on any action by Hutchins and Gasper to collect on the debts or foreclose on the deed of trust.

The Supreme Court reversed. The documents in question were in writing, were signed by Leadville, and contained a clear and unqualified acknowledgment of the debt owed to Hutchins and Gasper. Therefore, they constituted a new promise to pay, establishing a new accrual date and effectively extending the limitations period on collection of the debt.

2016 CO 46. No. 14SC99.American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hansen. Insurance—Ambiguity, Uncertainty, or Conflict—Persons Covered—Unfair Practices—Bad Faith—Penalties.

Respondent Hansen was injured in a motor vehicle accident and presented an underinsured motorist claim to...

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