Tag Archives: CAR 4.2

Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC, v. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.; Steve Pawlak; Daniel Hardin; and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd., 2013COA119 (August 1, 2013)

Soils swelled, cracking substructure; single-asset subsidiary sues. Residential homebuilders owe an independent duty to homeowners to build a home with reasonable care. In this CAR 4.2 interlocutory appeal, Defendant homebuilders argued that the economic loss rule should prevent a corporate subsidiary of a bank from bringing tort claims that a natural-person homeowner could bring. Rejecting each of Defendants’ arguments, the court of appeals held that the independent duty owed by homebuilders announced in Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041(Colo. 1983) also prevents the economic loss rule from barring a corporate-plaintiff’s construction defect claims. A homebuilder’s duty of care is owed to any subsequent owner of a house because the duty arises from the residential nature of the project, not the nature of the homeowner (corporate or otherwise).





Filed under Contracts, Corporations, Interlocutory Review, Torts

In Re: Parental Responsibilities Concerning M.D.E., and Concerning Bernice M. Spencer, Intervenor, and Scott Rottler, Petitioner, 2013COA13 (January 31, 2013)

Grandparents are great; but great-grandparents are not “grandparents.” Following the dissolution of a marriage, the grandmother of a child’s mother (Great-grandmother), sought visitation rights. Father objected. The trial court allowed Great-grandmother to intervene to seek visitation. Father obtained interlocutory review pursuant to CRS 13-4-102 and CAR 4.2. The court of appeals reversed. Under CRS 19-1-117 and CRS 19-1-103(56) a “grandparent” is “a person who is the parent of child’s father or mother.” Great-grandparents are not such a person. Although the Children’s Code is liberally construed in favor of the best interests of the child, unambiguous language, combined with the protection of parents’ rights under Troxel v. Granville, do not permit an expansion of the definition of grandparent. Thus, Great-grandmother lacked standing to seek visitation.



Leave a comment

Filed under Family Law, Interlocutory Review

Kowalchik v. Brohl, 2012COA25 (February 2, 2012)

Interlocutory appeals under the new Appellate Rule 4.2 are hard to get, but this conservation easement tax credit appeal adds substance to the rule.  Plaintiffs appealed a Dept. of Revenue disallowance of a tax credit to the trial court. The appeals court granted interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying DOR relief. The court gave 4 reasons for granting interlocutory review under the “controlling issues of law” prong: 1) widespread public interest; 2) failure to join parties can be dispositive; 3) resolution would control the ultimate outcome; and 4) to avoid inconsistent results. The court will review the merits of 4 issues related to conservation easements: 1) who is a “taxpayer;” 2) who is liable for tax deficiencies; 3) are tax credit transferees necessary parties to a tax credit appeal; and 4) what are the service requirements on transferees.



1 Comment

Filed under Interlocutory Review