Roberts v. Bruce
2018 CO 58
Colo.2018Background
- Della Roberts created a trust in Colorado; her son James served as trustee and later died in 2012. After James’s death, disputes over trusteeship arose among family members.
- The Robertses (grandchildren) removed Mary Sue (James’s widow) as successor trustee in Colorado probate proceedings and sought appointment as cotrustees in Colorado court.
- While the Colorado proceedings were pending, Mary Sue sued the Robertses in West Virginia state court contesting jurisdiction; the Robertses removed that case to federal court. The federal court dismissed Mary Sue’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and she voluntarily dismissed her Fourth Circuit appeal.
- The Robertses incurred substantial fees defending the West Virginia action and sought fee reimbursement in Colorado under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-102, arguing the West Virginia suit lacked substantial justification.
- The Colorado district court awarded $54,565 against Mary Sue’s counsel under § 13-17-102; the court of appeals vacated the award, holding § 13-17-102 does not authorize fees for actions in foreign courts; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-102 permits a Colorado court to award attorney’s fees for conduct occurring in a foreign court (West Virginia). | The Robertses: § 13-17-102(4) lacks the geographic phrase “in this state,” so it independently authorizes fee awards for foreign actions that have a detrimental nexus to Colorado; the statute should be liberally construed. | Bruce/Mary Sue: The statute’s geographic limitation in subsections (1) and (2) controls; subsection (4) merely clarifies definitions and procedures and does not expand reach to foreign courts. | The Court held § 13-17-102 is limited to conduct occurring in Colorado courts; subsection (4) clarifies subsections (1)–(2) and does not independently authorize fees for foreign-court actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles; look to plain language and legislative intent)
- Lombard v. Colo. Outdoor Educ. Ctr., Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) (avoid interpretations that render statutory provisions superfluous)
- Board of County Commissioners v. Kraft Building Contractors, 122 P.3d 1019 (Colo. App. 2005) (work-product doctrine discussion; court remanded for Kraft analysis below)