Tag Archives: CRCP 120

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, and Saxon Mortgage, v. Veronica E. Samora, 2013COA81 (May 23, 2013)

“Samora chose to accept … misrepresentations rather than … investigate the transaction after discovering the document was a warranty deed with the name of an individual [Wasia] she had never met.” (Opinion). Samora was the victim of a complex real estate fraud. As part of the fraud, she relied on misrepresentations about a warranty deed she signed, and unknowingly transferring title to Wasia. Wasia deeded the house to Saxon for a loan. Deutsche Bank (DB), Saxon’s trustee, sought to quiet title. The appellate court held that the Samora-Wasia deed was valid. As a consequence: 1) Samora’s claims accrued when she alerted the DA to the fraud, 2) there was no fraud in the factum because she knew she signed a deed, and 3) DB (who was not “closely related” to Saxon) was a holder in due course. Thus, the deed was not voided and the Wasia-Saxon deed was not a spurious lien. Title quieted in Saxon.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/12CA0872-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8957&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Contracts, Corporations, Defenses, Loans or Lending, Real Property, UCC

Amos et. al. v. Aspen Alps 123, et. al., 2012CO46 (June 18, 2012)

The competition for Aspen property can be fierce – or is it? An estate owns an Aspen condo. It gets foreclosed. The only 3 bidders at the sale bid up the price and then decide to form a joint venture to purchase the property and stop the bidding. They buy the condo. The Court finds they did not engage in unlawful bid-rigging because they did not interfere with competition, or agree to the venture ahead of time, and paid well above the starting price. A co-representative of the estate sought to set aside the sale. She received actual notice of the foreclosure sale but the estate did not. CRCP 120 strictly requires actual notice. Because wife received actual notice of the sale, the estate had constructive notice and chose not to object. So the lack of actual notice did not harm the estate. The sale is not set aside, notwithstanding the failure to comply strictly with CRCP 120.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2010/10SC187.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8557&courtid=2

Leave a comment

Filed under Real Property