Bruce v. Roberts
421 P.3d 1199
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Della I. Roberts created a Colorado trust in 1996; disputes over trust administration arose after the designated trustee (her son James) died and his widow Mary Sue became trustee.
- Two grandchildren (Jay Roberts and Ashley McNamara) sued in Colorado probate court to remove Mary Sue and wind up the trust; Mary Sue challenged Colorado jurisdiction and filed a separate action in West Virginia (removed to federal court).
- The federal district court in West Virginia dismissed Mary Sue’s action, holding jurisdiction properly lay in Colorado; Mary Sue’s appeal was voluntarily dismissed.
- Colorado trustees prevailed in the Larimer County probate case and sought attorney fees under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-102 for fees incurred in both the Colorado proceedings and the West Virginia federal action; the district court awarded fees against attorney Barry Bruce for both.
- On appeal Bruce challenged only the award of fees for work performed solely in the West Virginia action, arguing section 13-17-102 does not authorize a Colorado court to assess fees for litigation conducted entirely in a foreign forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bruce) | Defendant's Argument (Trustees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-102 authorizes a Colorado court to award attorney fees for conduct that occurred solely in a foreign court | Section 13-17-102 limits awards to "any civil action ... in any court of record in this state," so Colorado courts lack authority to assess fees for work performed only in West Virginia | The statute allows a Colorado court to award fees in a Colorado case for any related "action" (including foreign litigation) so long as the fee order is entered in the Colorado proceeding | Colorado court may not award fees for work done solely in a foreign action, unless the work product from the foreign action was used in the Colorado proceeding (vacated and remanded) |
| Whether Leslie (In re Estate of Leslie) requires affirming the award for out-of-state fees | N/A (Bruce relies on statutory text and Kraft) | Leslie supports awarding fees for related foreign litigation | Court distinguishes and declines to follow Leslie to the extent it conflicts with statutory text and Kraft |
| Whether equitable/probate powers allow awarding fees from trust assets for foreign litigation | N/A | Probate court equity and need to preserve trust assets justify awarding fees to restore trust funds expended defending frivolous foreign suits | General rule forbids fee awards absent statute; equitable arguments cannot overcome § 13-17-102’s territorial limits |
| Remedy on remand when foreign work product was used in state case | N/A | Trustees contend fees should be recoverable; may have used West Virginia work product | If trustees used West Virginia work product in Colorado proceedings, the court may award fees attributable to that work product; otherwise fees for WV action must be denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of County Commissioners v. Kraft Building Contractors, 122 P.3d 1019 (Colo. App. 2005) (state court may not award fees for work performed solely in federal court unless that work product was used in the state proceeding)
- In re Estate of Leslie, 886 P.2d 284 (Colo. App. 1994) (division assumed state court could award fees for state and federal proceedings; court here distinguishes and declines to follow to the extent it conflicts with statute)
- Kennedy v. King Soopers Inc., 148 P.3d 385 (Colo. App. 2006) (follows Kraft: fees for federal work are awardable only if used in state proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1997) (discusses legislative purpose of § 13-17-102 to curb burdensome litigation in Colorado courts)
- Lopez-Flores v. Hamburg Twp., 460 N.W.2d 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990) (persuasive authority that fees for services rendered in another forum should be determined by the court in that forum)