Tag Archives: Bond

Tarco, Inc., v. Conifer Metropolitan District, 2013COA60 (April 25, 2013)

Count the negatives: “noncompliance with nonclaim statutes deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction” (Opinion), and CRS 38-26-106 is not a nonclaim statute. That statute requires public-works-project contractors to post a bond. Here, Tarco did not post a bond when constructing an overpass and infrastructure around a shopping center for the Conifer Metro District (CMD). It did not get paid by CMD and sued. The District, after a two-year delay, claimed that Tarco couldn’t sue because of its noncompliance with the statute. The trial court dismissed Tarco’s claims. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding: 1) CMD’s pleadings didn’t prejudice Tarco, 2) the contracts were for “public works” under the statute, 3) the statute is not a nonclaim statute, 4) the CMD lacked the power to waive the bond requirement, and 5) fact issues saved Tarco’s equitable estoppel argument.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/12CA0250-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8920&courtid=1

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Contracts, Government, Proceedure

Old Republic National Title Insurance v. Kornegay 2012COA140 (August 16, 2012)

“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” In this case, a title insurance company (Title) took this advice to heart. Fearing an alleged money-laundering fraudster (Kornegay) would hide or transfer his assets once served with a complaint, Title obtained a prejudgment attachment of assets. Kornegay allegedly caused Title to pay its insured. The court of appeals rejected numerous objections raised by Kornegay challenging compliance with CRCP 102 (which authorizes prejudgment writs of attachment): 1) although Title was not domiciled or a citizen of Colorado, it was a “resident” for purposes of CRCP 102; 2) the trial court could set bond at $0; 3) a private server may serve notice of levy and execute writs; 3) a traverse cannot be a denial on information and belief; and 4) a vague statement of intent to occupy a home in the future does not support a homestead exemption claim.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2248-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8626&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Insurance