frivolous claim in Colorado

2024Hamon Contractors, I nc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc. , 229 P.3d 282, 299 (Colo. A pp. 2009). 3 To the extent that the defendants reraise arguments concerning GF’s standing that were rejected in Guire I and Guire II , we decline to revisit those issues. 16 ¶ 35 Rule 38(b) authorizes this court to assess costs, including attorney fees, against a party that brings a frivolous appeal.

2024Hamon Contractors, I nc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc. , 229 P.3d 282, 299 (Colo. A pp. 2009). 3 To the extent that the defendants reraise arguments concerning GF’s standing that were rejected in Guire I and Guire II , we decline to revisit those issues. 16 ¶ 35 Rule 38(b) authorizes this court to assess costs, including attorney fees, against a party that brings a frivolous appeal.

2024See Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063, 1069 (Colo. 1984) (defining a frivolous claim as one that presents no rational argument based on the evidence or law); Bockar v. Patterson, 899 P.2d 233, 235 (Colo. App. 1994) (defining a vexatious claim as one brought or maintained in bad faith).

1992See Western United Realty, Inc., supra; Montoya v. Bebensee, 761 P.2d 285 (Colo.App.1988).

2000Board of County Commissioners v. *1199 Colorado Counties Casualty & Property Pool, 888 P.2d 352 (Colo.App.1994); see also Nienke v. Naiman Group, Ltd., 857 P.2d 446 (Colo.App.1992) (lawyer is subject to sanctions for advancing a frivolous claim only if lawyer failed to present any rational argument to support client’s position).

1998Board of County Commissioners v. Colorado Counties Casualty & Property Pool, 888 P.2d 352 (Colo.App.1994); see also *339 Nienke v. Naiman Group, Ltd., 857 P.2d 446 (Colo.App.1992)(reversing portion of fee award attributable to legal question of first impression in Colorado, and stating that law firm would be subject to sanctions for advancing a frivolous claim only if it failed to present any rational arguments to support its position).

2025A claim is groundless if there is no credible evidence to support” it, while “[a] vexatious claim or defense is one brought or maintained in bad faith.” Zivian v. Brooke-Hitching, 28 P.3d 970, 974 (Colo. App. 2001). ¶ 29 Banghart’s arguments on appeal were difficult to discern (as were the factual allegations, such as whether an oral agreement to modify the contracts existed), and the cited authority did not support Banghart’s positions.

2024See Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063, 1069 (Colo. 1984) (defining a frivolous claim as one that presents no rational argument based on the evidence or law); Bockar v. Patterson, 899 P.2d 233, 235 (Colo. App. 1994) (defining a vexatious claim as one brought or maintained in bad faith).

2019Int’l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140, 151-52 (Colo. App. 2003) (under section 13-17-102, C.R.S. 2018, for bringing a frivolous claim or defense); Dahl v. Young, 862 P.2d 969, 973 (Colo. App. 1993) (under section 38-35- 109(3), C.R.S. 2018, for filing a fraudulent lien). ¶ 18 The only Colorado case we could find that questions the use of the lodestar method in any context, other than Woolley, is Brody v. Hellman, 167 P.3d 192 (Colo. App. 2007).

2019Int’l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140, 151-52 (Colo. App. 2003) (under section 13-17-102, C.R.S. 2018, for bringing a frivolous claim or defense); Dahl v. Young, 862 P.2d 969, 973 (Colo. App. 1993) (under section 38-35- 109(3), C.R.S. 2018, for filing a fraudulent lien). ¶ 18 The only Colorado case we could find that questions the use of the lodestar method in any context, other than Woolley, is Brody v. Hellman, 167 P.3d 192 (Colo. App. 2007).

2019Int’l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140, 151-52 (Colo. App. 2003) (under section 13-17-102, C.R.S. 2018, for bringing a frivolous claim or defense); Dahl v. Young, 862 P.2d 969, 973 (Colo. App. 1993) (under section 38-35- 109(3), C.R.S. 2018, for filing a fraudulent lien). ¶ 18 The only Colorado case we could find that questions the use of the lodestar method in any context, other than Woolley, is Brody v. Hellman, 167 P.3d 192 (Colo. App. 2007).

2019In that case, a division of this court noted the “recent trend” among federal courts in 10 “common fund cases” — class action lawsuits resulting in the recovery of a fund to benefit the class — to use a percentage of the fund method to calculate attorney fees instead of the lodestar method, which the division noted is generally used in “statutory fee- shifting cases.” Id. at 198, 201, 204 .

2007See, e.g., Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, supra (attorney fees were in the nature of costs where the amount was awarded to reimburse the defendant for the expenses incurred in litigating a frivolous claim).

1999See Colorado Department of Social Services v. Bethesda Care Center, Inc., 867 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1993) (the General Assembly evidenced an intent in § 24-4-105(4), C.R.S.1998, to hold an agency liable for attorney fees for asserting a frivolous defense to a vendor’s motion).

1999See Walcott v. District Court, supra, 924 P.2d at 167 (court noted that plaintiffs “failure to post a cost bond would result in dismissal and immediate termination of her civil action.”); Cook v. District Court, 670 P.2d 758 (Colo.1983)(in the absence of bad faith or a plainly frivolous claim, § 13-16-103 requires that a court only consider whether a litigant is unable to pay the costs and expenses of a civil action before granting a motion to proceed in forma pau-peris).

1995See Bakehouse & Associates, Inc. v. Wilkins, 689 P.2d 1166 (Colo.App.1984).

1995See Palisades National Bank v. Williams, 816 P.2d 961 (Colo.App.1991) (uncertainty as to the precise extent of damages does not delay accrual of the claim for statute of limitations purposes).

1993See People v. District Court, supra. As a result, in our view the ALJ was authorized to enter an award in this case.

1984See, e.g., Wyatt v. United Airlines, Inc., 638 P.2d 812 (Colo.Ct.App.1981) (issue was one of first impression and was justiciable); Rocky Mountain Sales & Service, Inc. v. Havana RV, Inc., 635 P.2d 935 (Colo.Ct.App.1981) (action involved genuine disputed issue and was not frivolous); Moore v. De Bruine, 631 P.2d 1194 (Colo.Ct.App.1981) (evidence of nonliability rendered issue nonjusticiable); Wood v. Jenson, 41 Colo.App. 301 , 585 P.2d 309 (1978) (continuation of present action based on compulsory counterclaims from prior action was frivolous).