LLC v. Johnson , 2019 COA 122 ( 2019 )

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
SUMMARY
August 1, 2019
2019COA122
No. 18CA1655, Actarus, LLC v. Johnson — Probate — Persons
Under Disability — Guardianship of Incapacitated Persons —
Termination of or Change in Guardian’s or Conservator’s
Appointment; Taxation — Property Tax — Redemption of Real
Property of Person Under Disability
A division of the court of appeals considers whether filing
guardianship reports with the probate court is sufficient to
constructively appoint a successor guardian pursuant to section
15-14-112(3), C.R.S. 2018. The division concludes that merely
filing such reports, without more, is insufficient.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2019COA122
Court of Appeals No. 18CA1655
Arapahoe County District Court No. 17CV32137
Honorable John L. Wheeler, Judge
Actarus, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Larnitta Darlene Johnson, by and through Bret Johnson, as next friend,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AFFIRMED
Division I
Opinion by JUDGE GROVE
Taubman and Hawthorne, JJ., concur
Announced August 1, 2019
Hatch Ray Olsen Conant, LLC, Robert W. Hatch, II, Christopher J. Conant,
Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Sparkman+Foote LLP, Kieran A. Lasater, Denver, Colorado; Pelz & Associates,
P.C., Harlan P. Pelz, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee
¶1 Plaintiff-appellant, Actarus, LLC, appeals the district court’s
declaration that defendant-appellee, Larnitta Darlene Johnson, has
a statutory right of redemption to the property for which Actarus
holds a treasurer’s deed. Because Johnson was under a legal
disability and did not have a legal guardian when Actarus received
a treasurer’s deed for the property from the Arapahoe County
Treasurer, we affirm.
I. Background
¶2 Johnson suffers from severe mental illness and has lived in an
assisted care facility since 1997. Her husband, Robert Johnson, 1
served as her court-appointed guardian until his death in 2012.
That same year, Johnson failed to pay property taxes on a house
that she owned. The county placed a tax lien on the property and
then sold it. Actarus bought the lien from its original buyer and,
when the lien went unredeemed, received a treasurer’s deed from
the county in August 2017.
1 Larnitta, her husband Robert, and her son Bret have the same
last name. To avoid confusion, Larnitta is identified as “Johnson”
in this opinion. Her husband and son are identified by first name.
1
¶3 Robert had not filed his annual guardian’s report before his
death, and so, beginning in March 2012, the probate court issued a
series of delay prevention notices requesting updates on the
guardianship as well as on Johnson’s status. The first of these was
addressed to Robert, but after an unknown person filed Robert’s
certificate of death with the Arapahoe County probate court,
subsequent notices were addressed to the other members of
Johnson’s family.
¶4 No one responded to the delay prevention notices until
February 2013, when Johnson’s son Bret, apparently having
learned of at least one of them, mailed a “Guardian’s Report –
Adult” to the court. Using a court-approved form, Bret listed his
name and contact information in the section entitled “guardian
information,” wrote “this is the first report for the new guardian,”
and checked a box indicating that he wished to “remain guardian.”
He also provided information about Johnson’s health, activities,
finances, and living conditions.
¶5 Even though it had received notice that Robert — Johnson’s
initial court-appointed guardian — had died, and notwithstanding
Bret’s representation in the report that he was “the new guardian,”
2
the probate court took no action to formally appoint Bret or anyone
else as Johnson’s guardian. In fact, the probate court did nothing
for nearly three years, when, in early 2016, it issued another delay
prevention order — this time addressed to Bret — ordering him to
file the guardian’s report for 2015 no later than February 4, 2016.
Although Bret had never been formally appointed as Johnson’s
guardian, the order included a bold “X” by the stock language, “[t]he
Letters of Guardianship/Conservatorship that authorize you to act
will be suspended if the document(s) remain delinquent.”
¶6 Bret filed a second guardian’s report, again identifying himself
as Johnson’s guardian and indicating a desire to remain guardian.
The pattern then repeated itself the next year. Each of Bret’s
reports was handwritten on the standard court-prescribed form,
which included a verification that it was being filed under penalty of
perjury.
¶7 Meanwhile, the clock was running on the tax lien that the
Treasurer had sold in 2013. The lien went unredeemed, and, on
August 15, 2017, the Treasurer issued a treasurer’s deed to
Actarus, which promptly recorded it.
3
¶8 After the treasurer’s deed was issued, Bret formally petitioned
the probate court to be appointed Johnson’s conservator and for his
sister to be appointed guardian. Actarus then filed this quiet title
action seeking a declaration that it was the sole legal owner of
Johnson’s home. Johnson (acting through Bret with the district
court’s approval) filed cross-claims against the Treasurer, for
allegedly failing to comply with statutory notice and due diligence
requirements, and counterclaims against Actarus, asserting that
Johnson had a statutory right to redeem her interest in the
property due to her legal disability.
¶9 Actarus moved for partial summary judgment, asking the
court to “decree[] that Ms. Johnson has no right of redemption
under C.R.S. § 39-12-104[, C.R.S. 2018].” The Treasurer also
moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts
established that the treasurer’s deed had been validly issued. The
district court granted the Treasurer’s motion but denied summary
judgment for Actarus after concluding that Johnson was under a
legal disability — and was without a guardian — when the
treasurer’s deed was issued. As a result, the court concluded,
section 39-12-104 applied to extend Johnson’s redemption period
4
by nine years beyond the date on which Actarus recorded the
treasurer’s deed.
¶ 10 Actarus appeals the district court’s order denying its motion
for summary judgment and declaration that Johnson has a right of
redemption.2
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
¶ 11 The district court ruled as a matter of law, basing its
conclusions on its interpretation of the probate and tax codes. We
review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Stamp v. Vail
Corp., 172 P.3d 437, 442 (Colo. 2007).
B. The Right of Redemption
¶ 12 A homeowner who fails to pay property taxes risks losing her
property through a treasurer’s deed. 3 §§ 39-11-101 to -109, C.R.S.
2 On May 29, 2019, the parties presented oral arguments to this
court. On May 30, 2019, this court stayed the appellate
proceedings until the parties could demonstrate that the district
court had entered a final, appealable order. On June 27, 2019, the
district court issued a certification of final judgment pursuant to
C.R.C.P. 54(b).
3 The governing statutes use the phrases “treasurer’s deed” and “tax
deed” interchangeably. See, e.g., § 39-11-129, C.R.S. 2018
(“treasurer’s deed”); § 39-11-134, C.R.S. 2018 (“tax deed”). Most
5
2018. When taxes go unpaid, the county “may sell a tax lien on the
property to a third party.” Red Flower, Inc. v. McKown, 2016 COA
160, ¶ 1. If the owner does not redeem the lien by paying the
outstanding taxes and interest within three years of its issuance,
“the holder of an unredeemed lien may obtain a treasurer’s deed for
the property.” Id.
¶ 13 Typically, a treasurer’s deed “terminate[s] the taxpayer’s entire
ownership interest in the subject property by conveying the totality
of the land on which the taxes are delinquent.” Bolser v. Bd. of
Comm’rs, 100 P.3d 51, 54 (Colo. App. 2004). It does so by
“convey[ing] a paramount title, wiping out any other interest in the
property.” Meyer v. Haskett, 251 P.3d 1287, 1291 (Colo. App.
2010).
¶ 14 There are, however, some exceptions. For example, a
treasurer’s deed is void “when the taxing entity lacked the authority
or jurisdiction to issue it” and is voidable when it “is issued with
authority but where that authority is exercised in an improper
cases from this court use the phrase “treasurer’s deed,” and we will
do likewise except where quoting statutory language that refers to a
“tax deed.”
6
manner.” Lake Canal Reservoir Co. v. Beethe, 227 P.3d 882, 889
(Colo. 2010). Both void and voidable deeds may be set aside by a
court when challenged as part of an action to quiet title. See
Sandstrom v. Solen, 2016 COA 29, ¶ 42.
¶ 15 Even validly issued treasurer’s deeds can be set aside in some
situations. As relevant here, a property owner who is “under legal
disability at the time of execution and delivery of a tax deed . . .
shall have the right to make redemption of such property at any
time within nine years from the date of the recording of such tax
deed.” § 39-12-104(1). Thus, while a homeowner’s legal disability
will not prevent the placement of a tax lien, the sale of that lien, or
the subsequent issuance of a treasurer’s deed, the recordation of
that deed does not extinguish a qualifying homeowner’s right to
redeem the property.
¶ 16 It is undisputed that Johnson is incapacitated and needs a
court-appointed guardian to look after her interests. The parties
likewise appear to agree that if Johnson had had such a guardian
at the time that the treasurer’s deed was issued, then she was not
“under legal disability” as contemplated by section 39-12-104(1).
As we explain below, Johnson’s “legal disability” (or lack thereof)
7
turns on whether Bret became her guardian once he began filing
guardianship reports with the probate court. We conclude that
Bret’s submission of these reports did not, without more, serve to
install him as Johnson’s guardian. Thus, Johnson was under a
legal disability when the treasurer’s deed was issued, and she
accordingly had nine years to exercise her right of redemption
following recordation of the treasurer’s deed.
C. Legal Disability and Guardianship
¶ 17 The statutes outlining the right of redemption do not define
the phrase “under legal disability,” see §§ 39-12-101 to -113, C.R.S.
2018, and its plain and ordinary meaning is capable of alternative
reasonable interpretations. As a result, we may rely on canons of
statutory construction, “including legislative history, the language
of laws on the same or similar subjects, and the placement of a
provision within the statutory framework,” to divine the General
Assembly’s intent. Associated Gov’ts of Nw. Colo. v. Colo. Pub. Utils.
Comm’n, 2012 CO 28, ¶ 11; see also 2B Norman Singer & Shambie
Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 51:2, Westlaw (7th ed.
database updated Nov. 2018). Here, because they share the goal of
ensuring that incapacitated individuals will not be deprived of an
8
opportunity to assert their rights, we look to Colorado’s statutes of
limitation, which have special provisions for “person[s] under
disability,” to assist our interpretation. § 13-81-101, C.R.S. 2018.
¶ 18 One of Colorado’s limitations statutes defines a “[p]erson
under disability” as “any person who is a minor under eighteen
years of age, a mental incompetent, or a person under other legal
disability and who does not have a legal guardian.” § 13-81-101(3).
Similarly, in the general limitations statute for child victims of
sexual assault, a “person under disability” means “any person who
is a minor under eighteen years of age, a person who has been
declared mentally incompetent, or a person under other legal
disability and who does not have a legal guardian.” § 13-80-
103.7(3.5)(a), C.R.S. 2018. In Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411, 414
(Colo. 1999), the Colorado Supreme Court determined the meaning
of “person under disability” pursuant to section 13-81-101 and
recognized that
[a] person under disability, for whom the court
has not appointed a legal representative, is
protected by the statute of limitations’ tolling
provisions. See § 13-81-103(1)(c), 5 C.R.S.
(1999). The statute of limitations begins to
run when the minor reaches the age of
eighteen or when, if it does, a court appoints a
9
legal representative for the minor. Court
appointment of the legal representative averts
the minor’s legal disability for purposes of
litigating the minor’s rights, thereby rendering
inapplicable the tolling provisions. See § 13-
81-103(1)(a), 5 C.R.S. (1999). The statute
defines a “legal representative” as “a guardian,
conservator, personal representative, executor,
or administrator duly appointed by a court
having jurisdiction of any person under
disability or his estate.” § 13-81-101(2).
(Emphasis added.)
¶ 19 Considering the similar statutory tolling provisions, and in
light of the holding in Elgin, 994 P.2d at 414-15, we conclude that,
for the purposes of section 38-12-104(1), an “owner of real property”
who “is under legal disability” includes an individual who a court
has determined is incapacitated and who does not have a legal
guardian who can advocate on her behalf.
¶ 20 Actarus asserts that Johnson is not entitled to a right of
redemption because Bret, although never formally appointed by the
court, was nonetheless Johnson’s “admitted guardian.” Because
Johnson had a guardian, Actarus contends, she did not have a
“legal disability” and was not entitled to a nine-year redemption
period. Actarus offers three arguments in support of its position:
(1) Bret was appointed as successor guardian pursuant to section
10
15-14-112(3), C.R.S. 2018; (2) Bret was a “de facto guardian”; and
(3) Johnson is estopped from denying Bret’s status as guardian due
to statements that Bret made in the guardian reports that he
periodically filed with the district court. We address each
contention in turn.
1. Successor Guardian
¶ 21 The parties agree that Johnson’s guardianship continued to
exist when the treasurer’s deed was issued — despite Robert’s
death — because Johnson is alive and the probate court never
issued a termination order. See § 15-14-301, C.R.S. 2018 (“A
person becomes a guardian of an incapacitated person upon
appointment by the court. The guardianship continues until
terminated, without regard to the location of the guardian or
ward.”). The parties disagree, however, as to whether the office of
guardian was vacant when the treasurer’s deed was issued.
¶ 22 The district court determined that the office was vacant (that
is, that Bret was not Johnson’s guardian) because, after Robert’s
death, Bret and the probate court did not follow the statutory
procedures for the appointment of a successor guardian. The
district court acknowledged that Bret periodically responded to the
11
probate court’s requests for the submission of the annual
guardian’s report for Johnson, and it further acknowledged that
Bret identified himself as “the new guardian” for Johnson beginning
in early 2013. But “treat[ing] [Bret] as a guardian,” the district
court concluded, is not the same thing as “order[ing] Bret’s
appointment as guardian.” In other words, the district court found
that the probate court’s “administrative oversight” did not result in
Bret’s assumption of Johnson’s guardianship by acquiescence.
¶ 23 Actarus contends that the district court erred in reaching this
conclusion because the procedural formalities required for the
creation of a guardianship and the appointment of an initial
guardian do not apply to successor guardians. Instead, Actarus
asserts that the delay prevention orders, together with Bret’s
responses to them, effectively appointed Bret as Johnson’s
successor guardian. We disagree.
¶ 24 Section 15-14-112(3) governs the appointment of a successor
guardian and states as follows:
The court may appoint an additional guardian
. . . at any time, to serve immediately or upon
some other designated event, and may appoint
a successor guardian . . . in the event of a
vacancy or make the appointment in
12
contemplation of a vacancy, to serve if a
vacancy occurs. An additional or successor
guardian . . . may file an acceptance of
appointment at any time after the
appointment, but not later than thirty days
after the occurrence of the vacancy or other
designated event. The additional or successor
guardian . . . becomes eligible to act on the
occurrence of the vacancy or designated event,
or the filing of the acceptance of appointment,
whichever occurs last.
¶ 25 Subsection (3) thus provides that a successor guardian takes
office only after a court appoints him and he has accepted the
appointment. But it does not establish specific procedures for
either of these steps. To resolve the questions raised by Actarus in
this case, we need only consider whether Bret accepted the
“appointment” that Actarus claims was effectuated by the probate
court’s delay prevention orders. Because Bret did not accept, we
hold that he did not become Johnson’s guardian.
¶ 26 In general, a person appointed by a court to be a guardian
must accept his appointment before he is eligible to act. See In re
Estate of Morgan, 160 P.3d 356, 359 (Colo. App. 2007) (court lacked
statutory authority to appoint guardian when nominee did not file
an acceptance of office). Acceptance is completed by filing a signed
and verified “acceptance of office” with the court that includes,
13
among other things, a criminal background check, information
about civil judgments and civil protection orders, and a credit
report. § 15-14-110(1), C.R.S. 2018. 4
¶ 27 While section 15-14-112(3), which governs the appointment of
a successor guardian, also requires an appointee to file an
“acceptance of appointment” before acting as guardian, it does not
outline procedures for accepting the appointment. But the need to
ensure that the successor guardian will faithfully discharge his
responsibilities to the ward is just as great. See Arguello v. Balsick,
2019 COA 20M, ¶ 23 (“The purpose of guardianship is to protect
and assist incapacitated persons; however, because a guardian
constitutes a restriction on an incapacitated person’s liberty or
access to property, guardianship proceedings implicate and require
due process of law.”). Because the paramount concern of a
guardianship remains the well-being of the ward, we see no reason
to deviate from statutory procedures intended to satisfy that
4 Some nominees, including public administrators and parents, are
exempted from attaching this additional information to the form
accepting appointment. § 15-14-110(4), C.R.S. 2018. Upon a
showing of good cause, a court may also waive the requirements
that a nominee submit these documents. § 15-14-110(4)(g).
14
requirement when considering the appointment of a successor
guardian. 5
¶ 28 For these reasons, we reject Actarus’ argument that Bret
accepted appointment as guardian by filing the guardian reports
and subjecting himself to the probate court’s jurisdiction. In
support of this argument, Actarus cites Morgan, 160 P.3d at 359,
for the proposition that an “acceptance of appointment” is merely a
filing by the guardian whereby the guardian consents to the
personal jurisdiction of the probate court. But Morgan never
reached that question. Rather, the division considered only
whether the probate court could appoint an unwillingly nominated
guardian (in that case, the El Paso County Department of Human
Services) over the nominee’s objection. Because the nominee
“objected to the appointment, did not consent to it, and, thus, did
not accept it,” the division did not have occasion to consider what
steps would have been necessary to formalize the appointment. Id.
5 We note that JDF 805, the court-prescribed form for a guardian’s
acceptance of office, implicitly follows the same approach by making
clear that any nominee, including an emergency or temporary
guardian, must provide extensive background information to the
probate court in order to finalize the appointment.
15
¶ 29 We hold that the requirement that a person nominated to be
guardian file an “acceptance of appointment” is not satisfied by
filing guardian reports. Before acting as a successor guardian, a
nominee must file an “acceptance of office” and submit to the court
any and all associated information required by the statute. § 15-
14-110(1). The court, in turn, must review and approve that
information and issue letters of guardianship that define the scope
of the guardian’s authority and authorize the guardian to act.
Because Bret did not submit this information, letters of
guardianship were never issued, and he was never authorized to act
as Johnson’s guardian.
2. De Facto Guardian
¶ 30 Actarus nevertheless asserts that in situations where a
guardianship is created, but no guardian is appointed, a person
who acts as a legal guardian becomes a “de facto guardian” subject
to all the responsibilities that attach to a court-appointed guardian.
¶ 31 The district court rejected this argument and explained that
“the Court cannot consider Bret a de facto guardian under the
common law. Any common law powers of appointment the probate
court may have had were displaced by the provisions in the Probate
16
Code governing appointment. See Beren v. Beren, 2015 CO 29,
¶ 29.”
¶ 32 Actarus contends that this was error because the probate code
does not contain any specific procedural or substantive provisions
for dealing with a vacancy in the office of guardian, and the
common law “fills the gap.”
¶ 33 Although the death of a guardian terminates the guardian’s
appointment, it does not terminate the guardianship. See § 15-14-
112(1). Instead, the guardianship of an incapacitated adult
terminates only upon the death of the ward or upon an order of the
court. §§ 15-14-301, -318(1). This creates the possibility of a
vacancy in the office of guardian while the guardianship continues.
¶ 34 The probate code accounts for this situation by permitting the
probate court to appoint a successor guardian “in the event of a
vacancy or . . . in contemplation of a vacancy, to serve if a vacancy
occurs.” § 15-14-112(3). By establishing procedures for filling a
vacancy in the office of guardian, the probate code displaced the
common law to the extent that it would allow for the recognition of
17
a “de facto guardian” under the circumstances here. See § 15-10-
103, C.R.S. 2018.6
3. Judicial Admissions
¶ 35 Actarus asserts that the district court erred in disregarding
Bret’s “judicial admissions” that Johnson was under the protection
of her court-appointed guardian. We disagree.
¶ 36 Actarus relies primarily on Holiday Acres Property Owners
Ass’n, Inc. v. Wise, 998 P.2d 1106, 1110 (Colo. App. 2000), for the
proposition that a party’s statements and admissions concerning its
legal status are facts subject to the doctrine of judicial admissions.
In Wise, a division of this court held that a party’s averments in
responses to interrogatories and in other evidence that it was a
common interest ownership community constituted judicial
6 An exhaustive search reveals only a single Colorado case that uses
the phrase “de facto guardian.” In re J.C.T., 176 P.3d 726, 735
(Colo. 2007). In J.C.T., the supreme court discussed Colo. RPC
1.14 as it stood when the case was published, noting that the
comment to that rule stated that “[i]f the person [under a disability]
has no guardian or legal representative, the lawyer must often act
as a de facto guardian.” Id. The version of the rule cited in J.C.T.
was effective until January 1, 2008, when the entire rule was
repealed and reenacted with amendments that did not change its
scope. The comments to the current version of the rule no longer
include a reference to a “de facto guardian.”
18
admissions. However, the doctrine of judicial admission “has been
applied in very limited contexts,” none of which are present here.
People v. McKimmy, 2014 CO 76, ¶ 17 (quoting People v. Curren,
228 P.3d 253, 257 (Colo. App. 2009)). Furthermore, there is no
indication that Wise extends beyond its narrow holding.
¶ 37 “A judicial admission is a formal, deliberate declaration which
a party or his attorney makes in a judicial proceeding for the
purpose of dispensing with proof of formal matters or of facts about
which there is no real dispute.” Kempter v. Hurd, 713 P.2d 1274,
1279 (Colo. 1986). It is a doctrine that relates to proof of facts. It
“does not apply to propositions of law.” Miller v. Brannon, 207 P.3d
923, 929 (Colo. App. 2009).
¶ 38 Actarus identifies as “judicial admissions” statements that
Bret made in guardian’s reports that he filed in the probate court,
as well as statements appearing in the motion to substitute parties
that Johnson’s attorney filed in the district court. But as we have
already discussed, whether Bret succeeded his father as guardian,
and, if so, at what point his succession was effective, turns on
whether his putative appointment complied with section 15-14-
112(3). That presents a question of law, not of fact. See McKimmy,
19
¶ 17 (judicial admissions apply to facts, not legal consequences of
those facts). The district court therefore correctly declined to treat
statements by Bret and by Johnson’s attorney as judicial
admissions.
III. Attorney Fees
¶ 39 Johnson requests attorney fees and double costs pursuant to
C.A.R. 38(b) and section 13-17-102(4), C.R.S. 2018. Although
Actarus did not succeed in this appeal, it advanced cogent and
well-supported arguments. See Mission Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674
P.2d 363, 365 (Colo. 1984) (“Standards for determining whether an
appeal is frivolous should be directed toward penalizing egregious
conduct without deterring a lawyer from vigorously asserting his
client’s rights.”); see also Janicek v. Obsideo, LLC, 271 P.3d 1133,
1140 (Colo. App. 2011) (“[A] claim is not frivolous ‘if it is meritorious
but merely unsuccessful[.]’” (quoting Hamon Contractors, Inc. v.
Carter & Burgess, Inc., 229 P.3d 282, 299 (Colo. App. 2009))). We
therefore decline to award fees to Johnson.
IV. Conclusion
¶ 40 We affirm the district court’s order and deny Johnson’s
request for attorney fees and costs.
20
JUDGE TAUBMAN and JUDGE HAWTHORNE concur.
21