Mintz v. Accident & Injury Medical Specialists, PC
2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1666
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Mintz interpleader action over funds in COLTAF derived from clients' settlements.
- Mintz withheld $130,186.79 from providers’ payments retained in COLTAF.
- Providers alleged Mintz’s dispute with them over additional fees and billing irregularities.
- First trial awarded the providers the COLTAF funds; second trial addressed abuse of process and fiduciary claims.
- Court found abuse of process and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding $284,050.09 in fees/costs plus $2,000 punitive damages; on appeal, judgment reversed on both counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of process—improper use element. | Mintz argues improper use not proven. | Providers contend improper manufacture of interpleader claim. | Reversed; improper use element not supported by record. |
| Fiduciary duty existence. | Mintz contends no fiduciary duty owed to providers. | Providers assert fiduciary relationship existed via COLTAF trust duties. | Reversed; no fiduciary duty found. |
| Remand and judgment effect. | Mintz seeks judgment in his favor on counterclaims. | Providers seek affirmance of the trial court’s findings. | Case remanded with directions to enter Mintz's favor on providers' counterclaims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hewitt v. Rice, 119 P.3d 541 (Colo.App.2004) (abuse of process distinguished from malicious prosecution; proper misuse requirement)
- Walker v. Van Laningham, 148 P.3d 391 (Colo.App.2006) (no abuse of process where improper motive not in action; coercive use required)
- King v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 97 P.3d 161 (Colo.App.2003) (abuse requires improper use in proceeding; ulterior motive alone insufficient)
- Inst. for Professional Development v. Regis College, 536 F.Supp. 632 (D. Colo.1982) (improper use must be beyond regular function of action; no abuse if within legitimate scope)
- Brodeur v. American Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo.2007) (fiduciary duties and reliance considerations; limits on fiduciary creation)
- Moses v. Diocese of Colo., 863 P.2d 310 (Colo.1993) (fiduciary duty arises from law or undertook duty; not merely unequal relationship)
- Biller Assocs. v. Peterken, 269 Conn. 716, 849 A.2d 847 (2004) (arm's-length business transaction generally no fiduciary duty)
- Brodeur v. American Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo.2007) (fiduciary relationship requires undertaking duty to act for another's benefit)