Benefield v. Colorado Republican Party
329 P.3d 262
Colo.2014Background
- In CORA case, Colorado Republican Party sought records from current/former House members from 2006 survey responses.
- Representatives denied access; Party sought district court order under section 24-72-204(5).
- Party obtained access to 925 of 1,584 surveys; 659 remained denied.
- District court denied costs/attorney fees to Party, ruling no prevailing applicant under the statute.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding any applicant who secures any record is a prevailing applicant.
- Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, construing prevailing applicant as a party who prevails on a significant issue; remanded for fee amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'prevailing applicant' in §24-72-204(5). | Party prevailed by obtaining records. | Benefield; narrow interpretation keeps discretion with court. | Prevailing applicant is the prevailing party standard. |
| Mandatory nature and scope of costs/fees when prevailing. | Party entitled to costs/fees for records obtained. | Custodians limited; discretion on amount. | Award of costs/fees is mandatory; amount determined by court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Archer v. Farmer Bros. Co., 90 P.3d 228 (Colo. 2004) (prevailing party standard used to determine fee awards)
- Denver Post Corp. v. Ritter, 255 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2011) (presumption in favor of disclosure)
- Van Steenhouse v. Jacor Broad. of Colo. Inc., 958 P.2d 464 (Colo. 1998) (analogous use of 'prevailing party' concept)
- City of Wheat Ridge v. Cerveny, 913 P.2d 1110 (Colo. 1996) (implied analogy to 'prevailing party' concept)
- Anderson v. Pursell, 244 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2010) (prevailing party analysis for contract fee provision)