2016 COA 81
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Louise's 2008 will devised a 500-acre ranch "in equal shares to be held as joint tenants" to her three daughters: Jeanne, Marie, and Karol. Attorney Rose Pugliese drafted the will.
- After Louise died in 2009, Pugliese renounced appointment; Marie and Karol served as co-personal representatives. Jeanne later sought their removal and claimed she had severed the joint tenancy by deeding her one-third interest to a trust.
- In 2012 the sisters executed an "Agreement and Release" under which Marie and Karol would convey 35 acres to Jeanne and Jeanne would convey the remainder of her interest to them; the agreement reflected a shared (but mistaken) belief about how a will-created joint tenancy could be severed.
- Marie and Karol sought (1) enforcement of that Agreement and Release and (2) reformation of Louise’s will under §15-11-806 (a 2010 probate-code amendment permitting reformation of even unambiguous instruments based on clear-and-convincing extrinsic evidence of mistake).
- The trial court (a) granted Jeanne judgment on the pleadings dismissing the reformation claim (concluding §15-11-806 did not apply), (b) held the Agreement and Release invalid for mutual mistake, and (c) declared Jeanne’s deed to her trust severed the joint tenancy (creating a tenancy in common as between Jeanne and the other sisters).
- On appeal, the court considered whether §15-11-806 could be applied retroactively to permit extrinsic evidence to reform Louise’s unambiguous will and whether the trial court correctly voided the Agreement and Release for mutual mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §15-11-806 (2010) may be used to reform Louise's unambiguous will executed before the statute's effective date | Karol & Marie: §15-11-806 can apply because §15-17-101(2) allows retroactive application in pending proceedings and for rules of construction | Jeanne: The amendment does not apply to governing instruments of decedents who died before the statute; Palizzi bars extrinsic evidence for unambiguous wills | Court: §15-11-806 is not retroactive here; it is not a rule of construction and §15-17-101(2)(a) controls, so extrinsic evidence to reform the will was properly excluded |
| Whether §15-11-806 is a "rule of construction" under §15-17-101(2)(e) (which would permit retroactive application) | Karol & Marie: Reformation statute functions as a rule of construction permitting courts to consider extrinsic evidence | Jeanne: Reformation modifies instruments (substantive), unlike interpretive rules; §15-17-101(2)(e) doesn't apply | Court: §15-11-806 is reformation (not a rule of construction); (2)(e) does not make it retroactive |
| Whether subsection (2)(b) (retroactivity for pending proceedings) requires applying §15-11-806 here | Karol & Marie: (2)(b) permits retroactivity for proceedings pending when the amendment took effect | Jeanne: (2)(a) is specific to governing instruments and controls; (2)(b) does not override it | Court: Even if (2)(b) covers procedural changes, (2)(a) is the more specific provision and prevails; (2)(b) doesn't make §15-11-806 applicable |
| Whether the Agreement and Release should be enforced or voided for mutual mistake | Jeanne: All three sisters shared a mistaken belief that the Agreement was the only way to sever the joint tenancy; mutual mistake voids the contract | Karol & Marie: Record insufficient to show Karol (and Jeanne) shared that mistaken belief; Jeanne bargained with conscious uncertainty so cannot assert mistake | Court: Trial court's factual finding of mutual mistake is supported by circumstantial evidence; findings not clearly erroneous; Agreement void for mutual mistake; Jeanne's deed nevertheless severed the joint tenancy |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Palizzi, 854 P.2d 1256 (Colo. 1993) (if a will's terms are unambiguous, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove a contrary intent)
- Roque v. Allstate Ins. Co., 318 P.3d 1 (Colo. App. 2012) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- Cain v. People, 327 P.3d 249 (Colo. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; courts read words in context)
- Roalstad v. City of Lafayette, 363 P.3d 790 (Colo. App. 2015) (statutes should be construed to avoid rendering provisions superfluous)
- Vanguard Telecomms., Inc. v. S. New Eng. Tel. Co., 900 F.2d 645 (3d Cir. 1990) (distinguishing contract construction from contract reformation)