Probate and Trust Cases Now Searchable in ICCES

/in , ,

by Jody H. Hall, Paralegal

As of Monday, August 7, 2016, practitioners can now search for probate and trust cases in the Integrated Colorado Courts E-Filing System (“ICCES”).  In the past, Colorado probate estate and trust cases were only available for viewing by attorneys of record.  If someone needed to determine if a case had been opened, he or she would need to contact the court clerk’s office and often pay a search fee.  In the most recent release of ICCES, registered users can search to determine if a probate estate or trust matter has been opened; however, the documents themselves will only be available for online viewing to parties of record and to the Court.

Protective proceedings will remain a protected filing class and only attorneys of record will have access to those cases.  An entry of appearance will need to be filed, and accepted by the court, in these matters to gain access.

All Public documents submitted in trust and estate cases prior to August 6, 2016, will be set to a document security type of Protected and not available for viewing unless counsel is of record in the case.

Click here to view the Probate Enhancements section of the Colorado Judicial Branch E-Filing News Newsletter, August 2016.

Seeking Clarity in the Distribution of Mineral Interests from a Decedent’s Estate

/in , , , , ,

by Andy Lemieux, Elizabeth Meck, and Jessica Schmidt

As any practitioner who has dealt with the distribution of mineral interests from a decedent’s estate knows, dealing with these interests can be tricky and the process is not always clear. This is particularly true when old interests have not been distributed properly at the time of death. Thankfully, recent decisions in Colorado, as well as updates to certain provisions of the Colorado Probate Code, provide some clarity to this process.  A recent decision in Utah also provides clarity about who is entitled to the proceeds of production from oil and gas operations when life tenants and remaindermen are involved.

Specifically, Colorado just updated its statutes governing the process for the determination of heirship, found in the Colorado Probate Code at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 15-12-1301, et. seq.  A sub-committee of the Trust and Estate section of the Colorado Bar Association carefully reviewed the existing statutes, coordinated efforts with other sections of the bar, and with the approval of the Trust and Estate section, presented revisions to these statute sections as part of the omnibus bill, SB 16-133, in February 2016.  The committee’s goal was to address the issues Colorado practitioners have experienced in trying to distribute these interests from dormant or previously-unopened probate estates and to make the process to distribute previously undistributed property, including mineral interests, more clear.  SB 16-133 was signed by Governor Hickenlooper on May 4, 2016, thereby adopting the revisions recommended by the committee.  A copy of the Bill as enacted can be found here.

Read more

Probate Judges Meet to Consider Current Issues

/in

by C. Jean Stewart

Twice a year probate judges from around the country gather to address current issues in probate, protective proceedings and mental health as part of the work of the National College of Probate Judges (“NCPJ”). Last week we met at the Grand Hotel Resort in Point Clear, Alabama.

Julia Meister, a prominent attorney from Cincinnati, Ohio, discussed the increasing frequency with which probate courts are handling competency disputes in the last chapter of life as opposed to traditional will contests occurring after death. She mentioned the recent, much-publicized probate court decision involving Sumner Redstone. After viewing the video-taped deposition of Mr. Redstone, the probate judge found the media mogul was sufficiently competent to identify who he wanted to be his health care provider.

Read more

Basic Estate Principles Learned From the Death of Prince

/in , , ,

by Jody H. Hall, Paralegal

The entire world entered mourning when music legend Prince died unexpectedly on April 21, 2016 at the age of 57. There is certainly no shortage of stories and speculation in the news and social media regarding the circumstances surrounding his death, and the handling of his legal, personal and business affairs.

However, as trust and estates professionals, we are drawn to the estate planning, or lack thereof, of the cultural icon. The story that will undoubtedly change and evolve as the estate is administered can be an entertaining and valuable source of lessons learned to share with clients, family members, and dare I say, ourselves.

No one has been able to find a Will. The initial reports stated that no one was able to find a will, and no one had reason to believe that a Last Will and Testament had been created. This underscores not only the importance of having a Will, but also of making sure your nominated personal representative knows where to find it.  Most jurisdictions still require the original will to be lodged or filed with the Court, so your loved ones will need to be able to easily access the original signed document.  Copies are generally not acceptable without additional court action.  The best place to store those documents may also not be in a bank safe deposit box, unless that person has access to the box already.  Otherwise, it may require Court intervention to access the box to determine if a Will is inside.  Communication before your death with those that you trust to handle your affairs after your death will alleviate much stress and confusion.  Read more

Is Any Family at Risk for Competency Disputes?

/in , , , , , ,

by Matthew Skotak

Casey Kasem (famed American Top 40 DJ), Tom Benson (owner of the NBA’s Pelicans and NFL’s Saints), and Sumner Redstone (controlling shareholder of Viacom and CBS) have much in common: wealth, prestige, and status. Though many may envy their fortune and fame, they may not envy their other common thread; competency disputes.

When Casey Kasem’s health deteriorated from Parkinson’s disease, an ugly court battle ensued between his children and his wife, which did not end until he died. A challenge to Tom Benson’s competency arose after he decided to vest controlling interest in the Saints and Pelicans with his wife, and lock-out his other heirs from those teams. Similarly, Sumner Redstone’s competency was challenged by his longtime companion, Manuela Herzer, after she was removed as his health care agent and was kicked out of his California mansion. These conflicts are public and recognizable, however, thousands of similar anonymous disputes occur every day across the country involving ordinary families.

Read more

Thoughts from the Bench on Trust and Estate Litigation

/in ,

by Carol Warnick

I recently read an article in the Utah Bar Journal1 that provides thoughtful insights into the area of trust and estate litigation in Utah based upon a recent survey to current and past Utah district court judges. As a trust and estate litigator who actively practices in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, I was most interested in what the district court judges had to say about the trust and estate cases they had either tried or dealt with on summary judgment motions. Some of their observations are particularly important to any lawyer practicing in this space either as an estate planner or a trust and estate litigator. Planners most certainly benefit from understanding these controversies from the judge’s perspectives, since it is the planner’s documents that will be front and center in the litigation of any contested case.

One of the most important points set forth by Mr. Adams is to remind the parties that the assets everyone is fighting about actually belong to someone else. The person who sets up the will or the trust gets to decide who gets the assets, and that decision doesn’t have to be logical or even what others might consider “fair.” It may also contravene what the decedent has previously stated orally to a family member or members. But the court is placed in the position of doing its very best to see that the decedent’s estate plan, whatever it may be, is carried out.

Read more

Colorado Supreme Court Upholds the Strict Privity Doctrine for Attorney Malpractice Claims

/in , , , , , ,

by Kelly Dickson Cooper

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the strict privity doctrine for attorney malpractice claims by nonclients and reaffirmed that an attorney’s liability is limited to when the attorney has committed fraud or a malicious or tortious act, including negligent misrepresentation. Baker v. Wood, Ris & Hames, case number 2013SC551 (2016 CO 5).

In Baker, the dissatisfied beneficiaries sued the attorneys for their father and alleged as follows:

  • The attorneys failed to advise their father of the impact of holding property in joint tenancy.
  • The attorneys failed to advise their father that failing to sever those joint tenancies would frustrate his intent to treat his children equally with his stepchildren.
  • The attorneys’ actions allowed the surviving spouse to change their father’s estate plan after his death.
  • The attorneys drafted documents for the surviving spouse that were different from their father’s original plan.
  • The beneficiaries were the intended beneficiaries of the client’s plan, that the attorneys failed to advise the beneficiaries of the relevant facts, and that they had suffered damages as a result.

The beneficiaries asked the Colorado Supreme Court to adopt the “California Test” or the “Florida-Iowa Rule” and set aside the strict privity rule. The Court rejected the adoption of both tests and reaffirmed the strict privity rule. The Court also held that the beneficiaries’ claims would fail under both the California Test and the Florida-Iowa Rule.

The Court put forth the following rationales for upholding the strict privity rule in Colorado:

  • It protects the attorney’s duty of loyalty to the client and allows for effective advocacy for the client.
  • Abandoning strict privity could result in adversarial relationships between an attorney and third parties. This could result in conflicting duties for the attorney.
  • Without strict privity, the attorney could be liable to an unforeseeable and unlimited number of people.
  • Expanding attorney liability to nonclients might deter attorneys from taking on certain legal matters. The Court reasoned that this result could compromise the interests of potential clients by making it more difficult to obtain legal services.
  • Casting aside strict privity would increase the risk of suits by disappointed beneficiaries. Those suits would cast doubt on the testator’s intentions after his or her death when he or she is unavailable to speak.
  • The beneficiaries have other avenues available to them, including reformation of the documents.
  • A personal representative can pursue legitimate claims on behalf of a testator.

The Court held, “We further believe that the strict privity rule strikes the appropriate balance between the important interests of clients, on the one hand, and non-clients claiming to be injured by an attorney’s conduct, on the other.” As a result, the strict privity rule remains intact in Colorado.

No Medical Evidence Required for Appointment of a Conservator

/in , , , , ,

by Kelly Dickson Cooper

Imagine that you have just discovered that your father has received several unsolicited emails asking for money and that he has sent almost $500,000 to anonymous offshore bank accounts.  Worried for your father, you decide to seek a conservatorship to protect his assets. 

These are the facts that started the dispute resulting in a recent Colorado Court of Appeals case, In re Neher, 2015 COA 103 (July 30, 2015).

At the hearing, there was no medical evidence presented, but rather, expert testimony from a CPA.  The Court ruled in favor of son and his father appealed.  The father’s primary argument on appeal was that Colorado’s conservatorship statute requires medical evidence before a court can determine whether a conservator is necessary. 

Colorado’s conservatorship statute provides that a petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is unable to manage his property and business affairs because they cannot effectively receive and evaluate related information.  In addition, a petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the individual has assets that will be wasted or dissipated unless management is provided and that protection is necessary.

The Court of Appeals denied the father’s appeal and held that medical evidence is not required evidence in a proceeding requesting appointment of a conservator.  The Court of Appeals considered the following in reaching the decision:

-The language of the statute does not expressly require expert testimony like other statutes in Colorado.

-The language of the statute does not require that a petitioner show the causes of the individual’s inability to effectively receive or evaluate information.

-The Court’s interpretation is consistent with other conservatorship statutes.

-To determine legislative intent, the Court compared the Colorado statute to the Uniform Probate Code and specifically identified that the Colorado statute did not contain the language “an impairment” like the Uniform Probate Code.

The Court of Appeals rejected the father’s arguments that the judicial department forms regarding the appointment of a conservator and the termination of a conservatorship contain references to a physician’s letter or professional evaluation.  The Court of Appeals also rejected the father’s out of state case citations as unpersuasive.

Litigation in the area of conservatorships is continuing to grow and this case provides important guidance for the interpretation of the Colorado standard for the appointment of a conservator.

Equity: Alive and Well in Colorado

/in , ,

by C. Jean Stewart

Historically, courts of law, presided over by judges, and courts of equity, presided over by chancellors, were separate in function and procedure.  Law courts were governed by strict rules and rights while chancellors, the representatives of the king, were said to rule with discretion, utilizing concepts of fairness, morality and conscience.

In modern times, courts of law and equity have been merged and concepts of equity have receded as a myriad of statutes and regulations have replaced the application of “conscience” in the administration of justice.  Early probate courts in America exercised equity jurisdiction.  Probate judges continue to be conscious of the equitable legacy of the courts over which they preside.  The Colorado Probate Code, adopted in Colorado in the 1970s, reminds judges sitting in probate that “Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this code, the principles of law and equity supplement its provisions.” C.R.S. §15-10-103.

Recently, the Colorado Supreme Court reaffirmed that the “probate court’s traditional powers in equity supplement and reinforce the statutory directives of the Colorado Probate Code.”  Beren v. Beren, 349 P.3d 233 (Colo. 2015) .  While the Supreme Court faulted the method used to calculate an equitable adjustment to a surviving spouse’s elective share, the Supreme Court approved the equitable award if calculated using alternative methods, including several suggested by the Court itself. 

Undoubtedly there will continue to be resistance to the application of equity in probate proceedings—particularly from counsel or parties who are at risk of suffering detriment resulting from its application. It’s hard to imagine such efforts will be any more successful in light of the current status of Colorado law.   

ICCES Tips for Probate/Trust Filers

/in , ,

by Jody Hall, Paralegal

We have all heard that the secret to someone’s heart is great food; well, in our professional realm, I venture to say that the secret to the probate clerk’s heart is a properly done filing.   In order to determine exactly what that means, I surveyed some of the Colorado probate registrars.  The following are tips from their feedback along with those that I have discovered here at our practice at Holland & Hart LLP:

  • Scan and upload EACH document separately and label each of them clearly.  Exhibits should not be attached to the petition or motion, but each should instead be loaded separately.  You should provide a detailed description of each document (e.g. rather than “Exhibit 1”, title the document “Exhibit 1 to the Petition to Approve Accounting: June 2015 Statement for ABC Bank Account”).  Codicils should be uploaded as separate documents from the Will and should be identified accordingly (e.g. “First Codicil to the Will dated May 1, 2015”).  I received differing requests as to whether to use Event Code Will or Filing Other for Codicils, however, I understand that an Event Code of “Codicil” has been requested for future ICCES releases.
  • Reduce File Size for Large Documents.  If you have a number of significantly large exhibits, utilize the features in Adobe to create smaller file sizes in order not to exceed the ICCES maximums for either document size (3MB) or total upload (50MB).  My personal favorite recent discovery is to open your document in Adobe, click on Print and select Adobe PDF as your Printer.  Just under the Properties button in your Print Box is a small click-box for print in grayscale (black and white).  If your original document contains color images or was just scanned in color as a default, you will be amazed at how much smaller the file size of your “new” document is.
  • Demographic Information.  Please be as complete as possible and enter the name, addresses, phone number(s), e-mail address for applicant/petitioner, and the name address, phone number, date of birth, and gender for respondents, date and pages of Will, etc. All this information is required for the Court’s computer system to function effectively. Therefore, if you do not enter the information, the Registrar has to do so, and the time they expend doing so is time they cannot utilize reviewing your case and issuing Letters.
  • Requesting Certified Letters.  If you are requesting certified copies of your Letters (for decedent estates or protective proceedings) at the time of your initial filing, the Registrars that I spoke with would prefer to receive that request in the “Note to Clerk” field.  If you require additional certified copies during the administration or have a special request, you will then have to file your request in a separate letter or memo.  Note that the Court does not have access to any “Note to Clerk” field once the filing has been accepted, therefore, those notes are not part of the history of the case.

In addition, please note that ICCES has released their updated Pricing Model effective as of 5/31/2015 which includes, among other things, increased postage costs due to new postal service rates.  The announcement can be found on the ICCES home screen, or by clicking here.

It is really just simple math – the easier we make it for the Probate Registrar or Clerk to review our documents, the faster they will be able to process them and issue the Letters, or other relief requested.  I hope that you found this helpful.  Happy Filing!