In re Estate of Owens
2017 COA 53
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Arlen Owens hired Angela Dominguez as a private caregiver after a 2010 hospitalization; he was diagnosed with memory impairment and died in 2013.
- David Owens (brother and sole living heir) petitioned to probate a July 2012 will, and later alleged that Dominguez unduly influenced the decedent and that he lacked capacity to execute POD beneficiary designations naming Dominguez.
- Owens sought (1) determination of testacy and heirs, (2) recovery of estate assets, and (3) to set aside three payable-on-death (POD) designations; the district court imposed a constructive trust on the POD accounts.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the court found the decedent lacked capacity and was unduly influenced as to the POD designations, but had testamentary capacity and was not unduly influenced when signing his will.
- The court held Dominguez in remedial contempt for violating the constructive trust as to $140,000 in a State Farm Bank account and sentenced her to six months (purgeable by payments).
- Both parties appealed various rulings (standing/jurisdiction over POD accounts, sufficiency of evidence on capacity/undue influence, jury-trial right, contempt/ability to pay, and attorney fees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Owens) | Defendant's Argument (Dominguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Jurisdiction to set aside POD designations and impose constructive trust | Owens: district court has jurisdiction in probate to resolve legal/equitable questions "in connection with" estate and thus can impose constructive trust on POD accounts; Owens has standing as heir. | Dominguez: POD designations are nonprobate transfers outside probate court jurisdiction; Owens/estate lack standing. | Court: Affirmed jurisdiction and standing; probate court authority extends to nonprobate assets when resolution is essential to administration (following Murphy and related cases). |
| Mental capacity and undue influence re: POD designations | Owens: Evidence showed decedent lacked testamentary capacity for PODs and Dominguez unduly influenced him. | Dominguez: Presented multiple witnesses asserting decedent had capacity; sufficiency of evidence insufficient. | Court: Affirmed findings; trial court credibility determinations supported, attorney's testimony showed decedent confusion re: PODs, and constructive trust properly imposed. |
| Right to jury trial on undue influence/capacity | Owens: (implicit) Dominguez waived jury by not demanding before trial. | Dominguez: She timely demanded a jury in postjudgment motions when issue ripened per Krueger. | Court: Waiver — Dominguez had opportunity to demand jury before the bench hearing; late postjudgment request not sufficient; legal principles in Krueger do not excuse failure to demand timely. |
| Contempt and present ability to pay (nonliquid assets) | Owens: Contempt order proper; Dominguez could be required to pay; risk of reincarceration remains. | Dominguez: Court erred using existence of nonliquid assets as basis for present ability to pay; challenge moot because she was released early. | Court: Not moot; contemnor bears burden to prove present inability — trial court's finding of ability to pay supported by inconsistent explanations and admissions; contempt affirmed. |
| Attorney fees | Owens: Fees under § 13-17-102 and C.A.R. 38(b) for frivolous appeal. | Dominguez: Fees under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) and § 13-17-201 for wrongful tort claim dismissal. | Court: Denied fees to both; claims presented genuinely disputed issues and § 13-17-201 inapplicable to this probate dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krueger v. Ary, 205 P.3d 1150 (Colo. 2009) (discusses burden and jury issues for rebuttable presumptions of undue influence and unfairness)
- In re Estate of Murphy, 195 P.3d 1147 (Colo. App. 2008) (probate court jurisdiction extends to disputes "in connection with" estate, including some nonprobate assets)
- In re Estate of Lembach, 622 P.2d 606 (Colo. App. 1980) (district court exercising probate matters has same jurisdiction as Denver Probate Court)
- Mitchem v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 802 P.2d 1141 (Colo. App. 1990) (power to determine whether to impose a constructive trust lies within probate court jurisdiction)