Tag Archives: CRCP 24

Mauro v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, 2013COA117 (Aug. 1, 2013)

“If the interest of the absentee is not represented at all, or if all existing parties are adverse to him, then he is not adequately represented.” Opinion. In a personal injury case, the parties moved for a protective order to keep certain records confidential. State Farm, defendant’s insurer, moved to intervene and oppose the order. The trial court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed. The court agreed with State Farm that: 1) its record-keeping obligations under state law gave it an interest in the outcome of the protective order; 2) there was no other venue in which State Farm could challenge the order; and 3) its interests were not protected by counsel for the insured, even if that counsel was hired by State Farm. The court did not, however, rule on the merits of the protective order. Instead, State Farm was permitted to intervene on remand.



Leave a comment

Filed under Evidence, Insurance, Proceedure, Torts

In Re the Interest of O.C. a Child, and Concerning C.M., 2012COA161 (September 27, 2012)

What voices should be at the table when deciding who should take care of a child who has been removed from the care of his parents? In this case, the child was removed from the care of the mother. The child stayed with a friend until moved to a foster home. Grandparents sought to intervene to request that the child be placed with them. The County and the Guardian Ad Litem opposed the grandparents’ request. The trial court agreed with the County because the grandparents did not have the child in their care for three months, as it believed was required under C.R.S. 19-3-507. The court of appeals first determined that it could decide the appeal by deeming the denial of the motion to intervene as a final order. The court then held that the statutory requirement of three months of care before gaining a right to intervene only applied to foster parents, but not grandparents or other relatives.



1 Comment

Filed under Appellate Review Challenged, Family Law