Garnishment defined: He owes me money, you owe him money; where’s my money? Here, a Public Trustee held excess funds following a foreclosure sale and redemption. Creditor did not obtain judgment until after the foreclosure, and the redemption period expired. Creditor sought to garnish the excess from the Public Trustee, who claimed the excess funds cannot be garnished. CRS 38-38-111 dictates distribution of excess funds following a foreclosure, and states that after the redemption period for junior lien holders ends, excess funds are paid to the owner. CRCP 103 permits garnishing funds of a judgment debtor held in escrow by a public entity. The court of appeals held the statute did not bar garnishment because Creditor was not a junior lienor, but a judgment creditor. Thus, the funds were subject to garnishment once the Public Trustee determined the excess funds were due to Debtor.
Monthly Archives: January 2013
TCF Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Public Trustee for the City and County of Denver, 2013COA8 (January 17, 2013)
This morning, Chief Justice Michael L. Bender addressed the General Assembly and delivered his State of the Judiciary address. He introduced the substance of his address this way: “Although adequate resources for court and probation functions are critical, I have not come here today to present budgetary needs. Instead, I will share some accomplishments, describe meeting the challenges posed by a struggling economy, and explain my goals for strengthening the judiciary.” Those accomplishments included:
- Colorado Springs Judge Crowder presides over a veteran’s trauma court that provides alternatives to incarceration for veterans with trauma disorders who are charged with felonies;
- Chief Judge Dennis Maes initiated and developed a truancy court in Pueblo;
- Building a statewide e-filing system for all cases;
- Adopting new procedures for water matters;
- Establishing community problem solving courts across the state such as veterans trauma, adult and juvenile drug, family dependence and neglect, DUI, adult and juvenile mental health, and truancy courts;
- Re-organizing the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline, which is revising its rules to increase transparency;
- Initiating a pilot project to increase mandatory disclosure of information by the parties to their opponents and to streamline discovery procedures in both business cases and medical malpractice claims.
- Establishing a Chief Justice’s committee on the legal profession to develop initiatives and policies concerning: how students are taught to be practitioners in light of the historical role of lawyers in society; what are the appropriate qualifications for practice; how lawyers should treat both clients and fellow lawyers; and how judges and lawyers should treat each other;
- The educational outreach program “Our Courts Colorado,” initiated by Court of Appeals Judge Russell Carparelli and Federal District Court Judge Marcia Krieger and supported by the Colorado Bar Association and the Colorado Judicial Institute;
- Addressing the great need for additional judicial training through distance learning, regional meetings, scholarships to attend out-of-state offerings and pairing with other agencies to provide training;
- The Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center, built without any general fund impact.
HERE is a link to the full text of the speech, which includes a streaming video of his address.
E-Filing through the ICCES system (replacing the old Lexis File&Serve system) is now available in the following counties: Adams, Alamosa, Boulder, Broomfield, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Denver (district only), Fremont, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mineral, Moffat, Park, Rio Grande, Routt and Saguache — the 2nd, 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 17th and 20th Judicial Districts.
Feb. 4, 2013 Districts 3, 15 and 16
March 4, 2013 Districts 1, 13 and 19
April 1, 2013 District 7 and 10
May 6, 2013 Districts 5, 6, 9 and 22
June 3, 2013 Districts 4, 18, 21 and Court of Appeals
You can find video training on line at the Colorado Judicial Branch’s YouTube Channel (yes, our court system has its own YouTube Channel!)
HERE is a link to the Attorney Training Manual.
In the Matter of Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for Proposed Initiatives 2011-2012 Nos. 67, 68, 69, and 94, 95, Philip Hayes v. David Ottke and John Slota and Barbara Walker and Don Childears v. Earl Staelin and Robert Bows, 2012CO1 (January 7, 2013)
Direct democracy takes citizen initiatives directly to the voters. Colorado’s Constitution, article V section 1, provides for such initiatives. But, they must meet various standards before they are placed on the ballot, and the Title Board is authorized to decide if initiatives meet those standards. CRS 1-40-106 requires “each designated representative” (proponent) to appear at Board meetings at which the ballot issue is considered. If a proponent fails to appear, the Board lacks authority to take any action. Here, two different initiatives were brought. In each case, however, only 1 of the 2 proponents appeared at a rehearing. In this original proceeding, the Court held that both proponents must appear at each hearing. If they do not, the Board lacks authority to set titles and put matters on the ballot. Because only 1 of 2 proponents appeared, the Board lacked authority to act.