262 P.3d 964
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Promissory note for $65,000 executed May 12, 1998, BLT Consulting; Tidwells personally guaranteed the note.
- Note due by Oct 1, 1998; deed of trust on Tidwells’ real estate recorded Oct 21, 1998; no payments made.
- On July 9, 2010, plaintiffs filed suit for declaratory relief seeking unenforceability of note, guarantees, and deed of trust.
- Plaintiffs argued the six-year limitations expired Oct 2, 2004 and lien extinguished under §38-39-207; sought declaration of invalidity.
- Defendant counterclaimed seeking enforcement/foreclosure; argued revival under §13-80-109 upon filing of suit.
- District court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, determining declaratory relief on limitations not within revival statute; affidavit offered by defendant did not raise genuine issue of material fact under §13-80-113.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §13-80-109 revives time-barred claims when plaintiff seeks declaratory relief on limitations grounds. | Tidwells argued declaratory relief is not a claim under the revival statute. | Bevan Properties asserted revival of note and lien via the statute. | Declaratory judgments on limitations are not |
| Does filing a declaratory relief action revive an extinguished lien and note under the revival statute? | Declaratory relief does not revive time-barred claims. | Revival statute should operate to restore enforceability. | No revival; statute not triggered by declaratory relief actions. |
| Does the defendant's affidavit create a genuine issue of material fact tolling the statute? | Affidavit failed to show a written acknowledgment tolling under §13-80-113. | Affidavit purported to show agreement tolled the payment period. | Affidavit insufficient; no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plains Metropolitan Dist. v. Ken-Caryl Ranch Metropolitan Dist., 250 P.3d 697 (Colo.App.2010) (revival turns on whether counterclaim is compulsory)
- Duell v. United Bank, 892 P.2d 336 (Colo.App.1994) (limitations revival applies to time-barred counterclaims)
- Rossi v. Osage Highland Dev., LLC, 219 P.3d 319 (Colo.App.2009) (lien destruction tied to statute of limitations)
- Samples-Ehrlich v. Simon, 876 P.2d 108 (Colo.App.1994) (writing required to toll limitations via acknowledgment or promise)
- Holman Street Baptist Church v. Jefferson, 317 S.W.3d 540 (Tex.App.2010) (example of restrictive tolling doctrines)
- Hamilton v. Cunningham, 880 F. Supp. 1407 (D.Colo.1995) (discussion of limitations and declaratory relief)
- Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs., 170 P.3d 821 (Colo.App.2007) (avoid absurd results in statutory construction)
- Gumina v. City of Sterling, 119 P.3d 527 (Colo.App.2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Toncray v. Dolan, 197 Colo. 382, 593 P.2d 956 (1979) (remedial nature of declaratory judgment rule)
- USA Tax Law Ctr., Inc. v. Office Warehouse Wholesale, LLC, 160 P.3d 428 (Colo.App.2007) (statutory interpretation methodology)