Lewis v. Taylor
375 P.3d 1205
Colo.2016Background
- Receiver C. Randel Lewis was appointed in 2010 to recover assets from the Mueller Funds, a Ponzi scheme run by Séan Mueller.
- Investor Steve Taylor received net profits of $487,805.29 from the Funds, with his last payout on April 19, 2007.
- CUFTA § 38-8-110(1)(a) provides avoidance of intentionally fraudulent transfers must be brought within four years of the transfer or, if later, within one year of discovery.
- Receiver and Taylor executed an express tolling agreement on April 12, 2011, tolling all statutes of limitation/repose through December 31, 2011 and deeming any action filed during the tolling period as filed on April 12, 2011.
- Receiver sued Taylor under CUFTA on October 14, 2011 (within the tolling period); trial court granted summary judgment for Receiver, but the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding the CUFTA time-bar could not be tolled.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted review to decide whether CUFTA’s extinguishment provision may be tolled by express agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lewis) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUFTA § 38-8-110(1)(a)’s time limit may be tolled by express agreement | Tolling agreement valid; statute permits preserving claims by agreement and Receiver filed within tolling period | "Extinguished" creates a statute-of-repose bar that cannot be tolled; agreement cannot revive substantive right | The provision is ambiguous and does not preclude voluntary express tolling; tolling agreement valid and Receiver’s claim timely |
Key Cases Cited
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (U.S. 2014) (distinguishes statutes of limitations from statutes of repose)
- Midstate Horticultural Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 320 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1943) (interpreting statutory cutoff in the Interstate Commerce Act as extinguishing substantive right)
- In re Estate of Ongaro, 998 P.2d 1097 (Colo. 2000) (interpreting "barred" language as creating a nonclaim statute and limiting tolling/waiver)
- First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. v. Cent. Bank & Tr. Co. of Denver, 937 P.2d 855 (Colo. App. 1996) (tolling/waiver can apply to certain repose-like statutes absent clear jurisdictional language)
- Klein v. Cornelius, 786 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2015) (Ponzi scheme transfers are presumed intentionally fraudulent)