Ruybalid IV v. Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas County
2017 COA 113
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ruybalid admitted to misconduct in district attorney disciplinary proceedings in the Third Judicial District.
- After the Counties refused to fund his defense, he retained counsel and underwent a disciplinary resolution.
- He entered a conditional admission of misconduct and a probation; sanctions included six months suspended during probation.
- Ruybalid then sued the Counties seeking reimbursement of attorney fees and costs incurred defending the disciplinary action.
- The district court dismissed, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding no statutory or equitable entitlement to fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §20-1-303 obligates reimbursement of defense fees | Ruybalid argues statute requires reimbursement as an expense of the district attorney's duties. | Counties contend the statute does not authorize attorney fees or litigation costs. | Statute does not require reimbursement; no explicit fee-shifting. |
| Whether Colorado Counties Casualty & Property Pool supports entitlement | Colorado Counties supports recovery under §20-1-303. | No alignment between CGIA-based logic and §20-1-303. | Not controlling; does not authorize attorney fees under §20-1-303. |
| Whether an American Rule default applies to fees here | Policy favors reimbursement to maintain office of D.A. | Public policy arguments belong to the General Assembly, not judiciary. | American Rule applies; no statutory exception. |
| Whether promissory estoppel can support reimbursement | Three statutes create promises to reimburse. | State statutes cannot create promises by counties absent an unambiguous county promise. | No promissory estoppel against the counties; no clear promise. |
| Whether the complaint alleged the expenses were for the benefit of the counties | Expenses were incurred in defense of duties for the counties. | Allegations are conclusory and fail to state a plausible claim. | Complaint failed to plead a plausible beneficiary relationship; no reimbursement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (limits fee-shifting absent explicit statutory authorization)
- Bernhard v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 915 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1996) (American Rule principle in Colorado context)
- Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. _ (2015) (explicit statutory authority required for fee shifts)
- City of Wheat Ridge v. Cerveny, 913 P.2d 1110 (Colo. 1996) (fee-shifting not inferred absent explicit language)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Huizar, 52 P.3d 816 (Colo. 2002) (attorney fees recoverable only when authorized by statute or rule)
- Colorado Counties Casualty & Property Pool v. Board of County Commissioners, 51 P.3d 1100 (Colo. App. 2002) (discusses §20-1-303 implications and limitations)
- Leadville Water Co. v. Parkville Water Dist., 164 Colo. 362, 436 P.2d 659 (1967) (costs vs. attorney fees interpretation in statutory context)