Sterenbuch v. Goss
2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1637
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Sterenbuch and Goss are attorneys; Smith and ICM are investment fund recovery professionals.
- Sterenbuch represented about 25 clients; nine clients terminated and joined Smith in 1999 after allegedly defamatory statements about Sterenbuch.
- New contingency-fee contracts with Goss superseded Smith’s arrangements; Sterenbuch suspected a joint scheme between Smith and Goss to poach his clients.
- Asset forfeiture case led to a March 16, 2007 consent judgment distributing funds to fraud victims, with Goss, Smith, and ICM receiving $598,710 in fees.
- Sterenbuch filed suit March 10, 2009 alleging tortious interference, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust; defendants counterclaimed for abuse of process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Sterenbuch's tort claims accrue? | Accrual occurred in 2007 when recovery was possible. | Accrual occurred earlier, by 1999, when injury began and the harm to business reputation occurred. | Tortious interference accrual occurred in 1999; time-bar but reversed for unjust enrichment claim. |
| Are Sterenbuch's civil conspiracy claims timely? | Conspiracy is a separate timeliness issue not fully addressed by district court. | Conspiracy accrues with the underlying tort; since the underlying claim is time-barred, conspiracy is also barred. | Civil conspiracy claims are time-barred because the underlying tort (interference) is time-barred. |
| Is Sterenbuch's unjust enrichment claim timely? | Quantum meruit/unjust enrichment arose from Sterenbuch’s services benefiting others; accrues upon underlying recovery. | Follows three-year contract-based statute; accrues when beneficiary recovery occurs. | Unjust enrichment claim accrued no earlier than March 16, 2007, and is timely; reinstated for further proceedings. |
| Did the district court err in dismissing the abuse of process counterclaim and the amendment request? | Abuse of process exists; amendment should be allowed. | Counterclaim lacked improper-use allegations; amendment would be futile and late. | Abuse of process claim dismissed; district court did not abuse denial of amendment; remand only to reinstate unjust enrichment claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trembath v. Digardi, 43 Cal.3d 834 (Cal. 1974) (accrual of tort claims for inducement of breach of contingent contracts)
- Brodeur v. American Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo. 2007) (distinguishes injury timing from damages in accrual)
- Hickman v. North Sterling Irrigation Dist., 748 P.2d 1349 (Colo. App. 1987) (general accrual principles for legal claims in Colorado)
- J.A. Balistreri Greenhouses v. Roper Corp., 767 P.2d 736 (Colo. App. 1988) (accrual timing when injury occurs; contract/business damages)
- Duell v. United Bank, 892 P.2d 336 (Colo. App. 1994) (injury begins when some injury occurs, even if later harm continues)
- Redd Iron, Inc. v. Int'l Sales & Servs. Corp., 200 P.3d 1133 (Colo. App. 2008) (timeliness of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment claims; accrual tied to underlying torts)
- City & County of Denver v. Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d 748 (Colo. 2001) (statutory interpretation guiding accrual and limitations analysis)