Opinion in pro se Plaintiff’s appeal published; parent was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Colorado High School Activities Association’s bylaws allows athletes to compete on “any other team, in any non-school activity or event in that sport during that sports season with the express written permission of the principal.” Plaintiff’s son, a Durango HS athlete won a 10k cross country race in Ohio but did not get permission to compete and was suspended from one meet. Plaintiff, apparently an Ohio lawyer, sued on behalf of his son. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. It noted many failures to comply with the CAR. And, Plaintiff engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by bringing claims on behalf of his son. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed because he failed to comply with CGIA notice requirements, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Tag Archives: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
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.
In re the Estate of Charles Erroll Hossack, deceased, Gladys Robinson v. Lori Hossack and Kirk Hossack, 2013COA64 (April 25, 2013)
A contempt of court order issued to compel compliance cost $231,300. Before 1995, CRCP 107 limited remedial contempt fines paid to parties; anything in excess of actual damages, costs and fees was outside the court’s jurisdiction. The 1995 amendments and the current rule now permit a fine paid to a party to exceed the damages caused by the contempt. Here, appellant was ordered to return property to decedent’s children; she disobeyed the order. The trial court issued a continuing fine of $100/day that grew to $1000/day after continued non-compliance. She claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction and, under CRCP 60, the judgment was void. The trial court disagreed. The court of appeals also rejected her arguments and the pre-1995 cases on which she relied because Rule 107 now permits such fines. The trial court had jurisdiction, and thus properly denied relief under CRCP 60.
BDG International, Inc., v. Robert J. Bowers and Auxiliary Graphic Equipment, Inc., 2013COA52 (April 11, 2013)
Maritime law applies in Colorado. Defendants (D) bring goods from Australia to CO. Plaintiff (P) is a subcontractor for packing and shipping. D is not paid and then fails to pay P. P asserts a lien against D’s goods, so D enters into a payment agreement (governed by CA law) with P. D breaches, P sues and wins. On appeal, D argued the state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction because the claims were subject to federal Maritime law. The court of appeals held that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction only for in rem maritime claims, but that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over these in personsam maritime claims. The court of appeals also then held: 1) judgment was final despite directions regarding post-judgment satisfaction; 2) there was no setoff for judgments against different parties; and 3) the trial court correctly resolved the contract claims under CA law.
State ex. rel. John Suthers, Attorney General and Laura Udis, Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code, v. Tulips Investments, LLC, d/b/a CashBanc, and David Blevins, 2012COA206 (November 21, 2012)
An elderly couple got a pay-day loan with an annual interest rate of 365%. Seriously. The Attorney General (AG) sought to investigate the loan under Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Consumer Protection Act. After the lender Tulips, a Delaware company, ignored numerous orders to provide information, including an administrative investigative subpoena, the AG obtained a court order to compel compliance. Tulips challenged the jurisdiction of a Colorado court to enforce a subpoena served out-of-state on an out-of-state entity. The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. The court of appeals disagreed on two grounds: 1) the legislature authorized the AG to take reasonable actions to fulfill its statutory duties, and 2) an administrative subpoena is not limited like a judicial subpoena under CRCP 45. The subpoena was enforceable.