2012 COA 219
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- REF appeals a trial court summary judgment for the Department and denial of REF's Rule 59(d) motion; the dispute centers on a 2000 contract to sell specialty plates only to REF members.
- From 1999–2000, the Department and REF executed a letter of agreement to restrict plate sales to REF members.
- The trial court held the letter did not create a valid contract but issued a 2002 order requiring sales only to REF members; the division later determined a contract existed.
- In 2009, the General Assembly amended § 42-3-208 to allow sales to RMRP members, not REF; the Department began selling to non-REF members after the amendment.
- REF argued the 2009 amendment violated the Contracts Clauses and that the Department could not rely on the amendment to excuse breach; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Department under the impossibility doctrine and vacated the 2002 order.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the 2009 amendment unconstitutional under the Contracts Clauses, remanding for damages on breach and for damages for the 2002-order violation; the new-trial issue was not addressed on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contracts Clause violation by 2009 amendment | REF asserts the amendment substantial-impaired contract and is unconstitutional | Department contends DeWitt not applicable; Winstar impossibility defense may apply | Yes; amendment unconstitutional; breach not excused; remand for damages |
| Breach of contract after amendment | REF maintains Department breached by selling to non-REF members | Department argues amendment permits compliance with law | Breach found; damages to be assessed on remand |
| Effect of 2002 order post-amendment | 2002 order remains enforceable despite 2009 amendment | Amendment overrides prior order | Amendment unconstitutional; 2002 order remains enforceable; damages for violation to be considered on remand |
| New trial ruling | Not addressed on remand; reversed on other issues |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.3d 849 (Colo. 2002) (Contracts Clause applicability; test for impairment)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1992) (substantial impairment standard; three-factor test)
- Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1978) (sliding-scale approach to impairment; historical regulation context)
- City of Golden v. Parker, 138 P.3d 285 (Colo. 2006) (State contracts vs. public obligations; rigid scrutiny factors)