Beren v. Beren, 349 P.3d 233

Sheldon K. Beren died in 1996; Miriam Beren elected to take her elective share, initiating a protracted probate proceeding.
The augmented estate included decedent’s net probate estate, nonprobate transfers to others and to Miriam, and Miriam’s own property; value determined as of the decedent’s death under the statutory framework.
The probate court awarded Miriam an elective share about $26 million plus an equitable adjustment of about $24.5 million, based on a 17.46% internal rate of return on undisbursed assets during probate.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Probate Code displaced the court’s equity and that the $24.5 million adjustment could not be awarded.
Colorado Supreme Court holds that the elective-share value is fixed at death by statute, displacing equity tied to post-death appreciation, but that the court retains equitable authority to fashion remedies not conflicting with the statute.
On remand, the probate court may award equitable relief (e.g., consideration of administrative expenses, reasonable rate of return on undisbursed balance, and other tools) consistent with the statutory framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Probate Code displace equitable powers in elective-share cases?	Beren argues Code displaces equity entirely.	Respondents urge only limited or no equitable power after death.	Code displaces some equity where plain language conflicts, but equity remains to the extent not displaced.
Is the elective share value fixed at the decedent’s death and not adjusted by post-death estate performance?	Beren contends value should reflect estate performance.	Respondents argue value fluctuates with administration.	Yes; value fixed at death; post-death performance cannot adjust the elective-share amount.
May a probate court award an equitable adjustment for delay or excessive administrative expenses?	Beren seeks equitable adjustment to compensate for delay and costs.	Respondents argue against equity based on statutory framework.	Remand permissible; equitable relief may be awarded within statutory limits, including consideration of administrative expenses.
What forms of equitable relief are available on remand?	Equity can account for delay, administrative costs, and reasonable return on undistributed balance.	Equity should be tightly constrained by the statutory framework.	Court may consider administrative expenses, reasonable rate of return, and other remedial tools consistent with §15-10-103.

Hickerson v. Vessels, 316 P.3d 620 (Colo. 2014) (statutory construction and canons of harmony when conflict arises)
Lunsford v. Western States Life Insurance, 908 P.2d 79 (Colo. 1985) (preemption of common-law powers by statute requires explicit intent)
Telluride Resort & Spa, L.P. v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 40 P.3d 1260 (Colo. 2002) (conflicts between provisions resolved by applying the special over the general provision)
Rodgers v. Colorado Department of Human Services, 39 P.3d 1232 (Colo. App. 2001) (statutory interest on funds following reversal may be appropriate where wrongful withholding is shown)
Tuscany, LLC v. Western States Excavating Pipe & Boring, LLC, 128 P.3d 274 (Colo. App. 2005) (statutory interest and restitution concepts in appellate contexts)