Julius Garcia v. Krysta Bialozor, 2022 COA 58

Background

Decedent Deborah Garcia died intestate; survived by her father (Julius Garcia) and two children (one adult, Bialozor, and one minor, A.G.).
Initial autopsy attributed death to cardiac arrhythmia; years later a second pathology report suggested pulmonary edema consistent with possible asphyxia.
Petitioners Pete DeHerrera and Diana Strong filed a slayer-statute action against Julius seeking (a) a judicial finding that Julius feloniously killed Deborah and (b) forfeiture/revocation of any benefits so that the children would receive estate proceeds.
A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed for the minor child; the adult child opposed relief sought on her behalf. Father offered a $500,000 settlement to the children and Strong; father made a contingent admission of liability to effect settlement.
The district court entered final judgment: it accepted father’s admission as to Strong’s felonious-killing claim and entered a $500,000 judgment to be split between the children; it also awarded costs to Strong.
On appeal the Colorado Court of Appeals held that DeHerrera and Strong lacked standing to prosecute slayer claims on behalf of the children or in their own names, reversed the judgment entered for Strong (including costs), and left the monetary settlement to the children intact.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DeHerrera/Strong could bring slayer claims on behalf of adult heir Bialozor	They could sue for the heirs' benefit; adult heir’s welfare justifies representation	An adult must sue in their own name; no authority to litigate for another adult	No standing — Bialozor was an adult not adjudicated incompetent, so petitioners could not sue for her
Whether DeHerrera/Strong could sue for the minor A.G. after GAL appointment	They should be allowed to represent the minor’s interest	Once GAL appointed, petitioners lack authority to pursue claims for the minor	No standing — the GAL represented the minor and disavowed petitioners’ claims
Whether non-heirs with no pecuniary interest can bring slayer claims solely to obtain a judicial finding of felonious killing	Slayer statute’s “interested person” definition is flexible and permits claims to vindicate justice/prevent profiting	Slayer statute is aimed at preventing killers from financially benefiting; only those with property rights or claims against the estate are interested persons	No standing — absent a property interest or claim against the estate, petitioners cannot bring individual slayer claims solely to obtain a judicial determination
Whether Strong was entitled to costs as the prevailing party	Strong argued she prevailed on the felonious-killing claim and so was prevailing party	Father argued Strong lacked standing, so she could not be a prevailing party	Costs award reversed — Strong lacked standing and therefore could not be the prevailing party

Key Cases Cited

Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851 (Colo. 2004) (Colorado standing test: injury-in-fact and legally protected interest)
City of Greenwood Village v. Petitioners for Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427 (Colo. 2000) (requirement of concrete adverseness for standing)
Harmatz v. Harmatz, 457 A.2d 399 (D.C. 1983) (adult must generally sue in own name; others lack authority absent guardianship)
Vandiver v. Hardin Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 925 F.2d 927 (6th Cir. 1991) (adult’s right to represent a child ends at majority)
In re Estate of Elliott, 993 P.2d 474 (Colo. 2000) (discussion of heirs’ rights under intestacy rules)
In re Stoiber’s Estate, 72 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1937) (contest of will requires sufficient interest to confer standing)
In re Estate of Bonfils, 543 P.2d 701 (Colo. 1975) (ex-spouse lacks standing to assert claims against decedent’s estate)
Wilkins v. Fireman’s Fund Am. Life Ins. Co., 695 P.2d 391 (Idaho 1985) (slayer-statute purpose: prevent wrongdoer from profiting)
In re Estate of Miller, 840 So. 2d 703 (Miss. 2003) (same: slayer statutes aim to block financial benefit to killers)