Glover v. Innis
252 P.3d 1204
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendants Norma J. Innis, Richard L. Innis, and Dain D. Innis arranged a note for $250,000 and a related agreement and warranty deed conveying decedent Juel Noren’s Mesa County property.
- The note required monthly payments starting January 1, 2007; decedent died before any payments were due and no payments were made.
- Decedent retained the note; defendants delivered it to Nevada and later the decedent signed the agreement and deed, with the note found among his Nevada possessions after death.
- Plaintiff (estate personal representative) sued for fraud, illusory transaction, and other claims; defendants raised waiver/renunciation defenses.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on the note to plaintiff; then held a bench trial on remaining claims in defendants’ favor; post-trial interest issues were unresolved.
- This appeal challenges summary judgment on the note and the rejection of defendants’ waiver/renunciation argument; the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether decedent waived the note via waiver, not renunciation. | Noren waived rights; renunciation not required. | Waiver was not properly considered; renunciation analysis should apply. | Waiver proper; remand to assess genuine fact issue on waiver. |
| Proper interpretation and application of the Dead Man's statute in admission of evidence. | Dead Man's statute bars defendants' evidence. | Statute allows admissibility under revised framework for corroboration. | Statute applies to decedent's oral statements; remand to apply corroboration and admissibility rules. |
| The admissibility of parol or extrinsic evidence to prove waiver of the note outside renunciation. | Parol evidence cannot vary written terms; but can prove waiver. | Extrinsic evidence should be barred by parol evidence rule. | Extrinsic evidence may be admissible to prove waiver, not to vary terms; remand for evidentiary evaluation. |
| If plaintiff prevails on the note, whether the trial court must provide explicit findings on interest. | No need for new specificity beyond remand proceedings. | Findings insufficient; interests must be clearly itemized. | Remand to allow explicit findings on interest components. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebrahimi v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 794 P.2d 1015 (Colo. App. 1989) (renunciation of rights may be proven by written or act-based waiver)
- Metro Nat'l Bank v. Roe, 675 P.2d 331 (Colo. App. 1983) (renunciation requires written form when not surrendering instrument)
- Clovis Nat'l Bank v. Thomas, 425 P.2d 726 (N.M. 1967) (waiver/discharge of obligation may supplement UCC provisions)
- Adams v. White, 476 P.2d 36 (Colo. 1970) (comparable pre-UCC waivers considerations)
- Risbry v. Swan, 239 P.2d 600 (Colo. 1951) (standing of personal representatives in adverse claims)
- Newflower Market, Inc. v. Cook, 229 P.3d 1058 (Colo. App. 2010) (summary judgment standard and inference rules for nonmovant)