Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
Legal Directory
Professionalism Month

Notice of Meeting 3-17-05 and Minutes of Meeting 2-17-05



To: Members of the Rules and Forms Committee


The next meeting will be Thursday, March 17, 2005

12:00 p.m. to 1:15 P.M.



9th Floor, Executive Conference Room (Please check the board as you walk in)
1900 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203-4309
(303) 860-1112






Consider changes to the Visitor’s Report form, CPC 32-V.


Consider John Launce’s drafts of forms for successor personal representatives to apply for appointment in informal probate.


Consider renumbering the Rules and Forms.






Present on February 17, 2005:



1. The meeting of the Rules and Forms Committee was called to order at 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2005 by the chair, Mike Holder.


2. The minutes of the January 20, 2005 meeting were approved without objection.


3. The chair noted that Statutory Revisions Committee (SRC) and Council approved in January our committee’s suggested change to C.R.S. 15-10-201 to add a definition as follows:

"Domiciliary foreign personal representative" means a personal representative appointed by another jurisdiction in which the decedent was domiciled at the time of his or her death.


4. The chair passed out the proposal from Rules and Forms to be presented to the SRC and Council today to amend C.R.S. 15-14-433. The change in language would be from "copies of letters of appointment" to "copies of his or her appointment". This will clarify that it is not just the "copies of letters of appointment" that need to be filed. C.R.S. 15-13-204 Proof of Authority, for foreign personal representatives, uses the language "copies of his appointment", instead of "letters of appointment". The former language was thought by the committee to authorize the new proposed Rule 18.1 and the two proposed forms. Changing the statute would more clearly allow Rule 18.2, and related forms, to be created to require the filing of orders, letters and other documents related to the appointment. This statutory change was approved at our last meeting.


[Editor’s note. The proposal was approved by SRC and Council at their meetings on the same day following this meeting, with a change of the language from "copies of his or her appointment" to "copies of the Conservator’s appointment documents".]


5. The chair obtained consensus that we will wait to present new rules and forms related to ancillary probate and conservatorships until the two statutory changes noted above have been passed by the legislature.


6. The Chair passed out copies of CPC Form 32-V, Visitor’s Report, and the form Catherine Seal suggested that we consider, Geriatric Intake/Assessment prepared by Life Care Solutions, Inc. to make CPC 32-V more useful. There was a general discussion that included the following:


  • Catherine said the Life Care form was developed by a geriatric care nurse. It is not used yet by the courts. Use would require training visitors, which this nurse believes she could do in an hour or two. The neuro-psych report Catherine usually receives is not very helpful, even though it costs $400 to $500. It would be better to focus more on the visitor’s report and less on the neuro-pysch report. The neuro-pysch report does give you an evidentiary basis, but you may be able to use a physician’s report for this.



  • Carl said the current form "stinks". It was not changed when the UGPPA was enacted, except to add the checkbox for conservatorships. So, it is does not correspond to the new law, especially as to conservatorships. There in nothing in the form to show debts or to indicate objections of the respondent, and there is little room to add comments. The current form is very superficial. The Life Care form is good, but it would require training of visitors, and there is no money for this. You only need the neuro-psych report if the matter is contested. It is usually overkill. A functional assessment is what’s important.



  • We looked at the visitor’s duties under 15-14-305.



  • Laurie said the Life Care form is far too much for a simple guardianship.



  • Others:



  • Should there be two forms, one for guardianship and one for conservatorship?



  • Should the form contain a HIPPA release, since some providers ignore court orders?



  • The Life Care form asks for more than the statutes require. Visitors are not supposed to give respondents physical evaluations or tests. It is overkill.



  • We looked at current form CPC 32-V. It has some mistakes on the first page in the Note at the bottom: the cite should be to 15-14-305, not 303; and the requirement of the Visitor sending the report to the court and others within 10 days of the appointment is not the law. [Editor’s note: 15-14-305(5) says "The visitor shall promptly file a report in writing with the court. . . . "]



  • We decided that at the next meeting, we will look at the current report to see if it should be adjusted and whether to add anything to it from the Life Care form.



  • We should add hospitalization information to the form, Sections I and II.



  • We should add other resources (providers) information to the form, Section I.



  • The conclusions in Section VI should be changed to conform to the UGPPA.



  • "Incapacitated person" should be changed to "respondent".



  • Questions should be added to ask if the respondent has a will, general or medical power of attorney, living will, etc. This is important to know if a nomination has been made, and what other preferences are in writing.



  • The form needs to have something about the respondent’s ability to handle financial matters. Courtney Smith agreed to work on these questions with Catherine.



  • Carl likes the idea of a mini-status exam being done by the visitor like the Lawton test on page 19 of the Life Care form.



  • But who answers these questions? The respondent? The physician? The petitioner? Are visitors trained to do this?



7. The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Pete Bullard, Secretary