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

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions
June 10, 2013

2013 CO 33. No. 10SC143. Weinstein v. Colborne Foodbotics, LLC.
Limited Liability Company (LLC)—LLC Creditor’s Claims Against Members and Managers—CRS § 7-80-606—Fiduciary Duty of LLC Manager.

The Supreme Court held that, pursuant to CRS § 7-80-606, an LLC’s members are liable for an unlawful distribution to the LLC but not to the LLC’s creditors. The Supreme Court also held that an insolvent LLC’s managers do not owe the LLC’s creditors the same common law fiduciary duty an insolvent corporation’s directors owe the corporation’s creditors. Accordingly, plaintiff, a creditor of an LLC, may not assert a claim for either unlawful distribution against the defendant members or common law breach of fiduciary duty against the defendant managers absent express statutory authority.

2013 CO 34. No. 11SC733. Dooly v. People.
Post-conviction Relief—Crim.P. 35(c)—Crim.P. 12(a)—Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Defendant Joshua Dooly sought review of the court of appeals’ judgment in People v. Dooly(No. 10CA1751), which affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c). The district court denied Dooly’s request for new counsel and instead granted his existing counsel’s motion to dismiss his application altogether, on the ground that the issues it raised failed to state a claim and therefore were without arguable merit. The court of appeals upheld the district court’s order of dismissal, reasoning that Crim.P. 12(a) provides for a motion to dismiss an application for post-conviction relief, and that the public defender, as Dooly’s counsel of record, could file motions on behalf of his client, including a motion to dismiss his client’s application for relief from his convictions despite being in clear contravention of his client’s wishes.

Every person convicted of a crime is provided a statutory right to make application for post-conviction relief and is entitled to a prompt review and ruling on any motion substantially complying with Form 4 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss against defendant’s wishes. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed with instructions to order that defendant’s application for post-conviction relief be reinstated.

2013 CO 35. No. 11SC725. M.S. v. People in the Interest of A.C.
Dependency and Neglect—Foster Parents—Due Process Rights of Foster Parents.

In this dependency and neglect case, the Supreme Court reviewed the court of appeals’ finding that removal of A.C. from his pre-adoptive foster parents’ home without prior notice to the foster parents did not violate their due process rights. The foster parents, though identified by the juvenile court as prospective adoptive parents, had not yet initiated the adoption process. Because of this, the Court concluded that their rights with regard to A.C. are indistinguishable from those of typical foster care parents.  Therefore, they do not possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Because they do not possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the Court did not consider whether a due process violation occurred. The judgment was affirmed.

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions