statute of limitations defense in Colorado

2026Firm, L.L.C., 2012 CO 61, ¶ 17 ). ¶ 16 “A statute of limitations defense may be considered [at this stage] where the bare allegations of the complaint reveal that the action was not brought within the required statutory period.” SMLL, L.L.C., 111 P.3d at 564 .

2025A 4 defendant can raise a statute of limitations defense under Rule 12(b)(5) when “the bare allegations of the complaint reveal that the action was not brought within the required statutory period.” SMLL, L.L.C. v. Peak Nat’l Bank, 111 P.3d 563, 564 (Colo. App. 2005).

2016Bd. of Comm'rs, 948 P.2d 1002 , 1007 (Colo.1997). ¶ 53 A defendant is estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense when: (1) the party to be estopped knows the relevant facts; (2) the party to be estopped intends that its conduct be acted on, or acts in a manner that the party asserting estoppel believes the party to be estopped has such intent; (3) the party asserting estoppel is ignorant of the relevant facts; and (4) the party asserting estoppel relies on the other party's conduct to its detriment.

2016Bd. of Comm’rs , 948 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Colo. 1997). ¶53 A defendant is estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense when: (1) the party to be estopped knows the relevant facts; (2) the party to be estopped intends that its conduct be acted on, or acts in a manner that the party asserting estoppel believes the party to be estopped has such intent; (3) the party asserting estoppel is ignorant of the relevant facts; and (4) the party asserting estoppel relies on the other party’s conduct to its detriment.

2026“Although a statute of limitations defense generally should not be raised on a motion to dismiss, such a defense may be considered . . . when the bare allegations of the complaint reveal that the action was not brought within the required statutory period.” Meyerstein v. City of Aspen, 282 P.3d 456, 470-71 (Colo. App. 2011) (citations omitted). ¶8 To overcome summary dismissal for failure to state a claim, the burden is on the claiming party to prove “sufficient facts that, if taken as true, suggest plausible grounds to support a claim for relief.” Patterson v. James, 2018 COA 173, ¶ 23 (citin

2026Meyerstein v. City of Aspen, 282 P.3d 456, 470-71 (Colo. App. 2011). ¶ 13 Because Franklin filed this appeal without the assistance of counsel, we construe her briefs broadly to ensure that she is not denied review of important issues because of her inability to 10 articulate her argument like a lawyer.

2026However, a party may assert a statute of limitations defense in a motion to dismiss “when the time alleged in the complaint shows that the action was not brought within the statutory period.” Wasinger v. Reid, 705 P.2d 533, 534 (Colo. App. 1985).

1994See Wasinger v. Reid, 705 P.2d 533 (Colo.App.1985).

2024See Strader v. Beneficial Fin. 15 Co., 551 P.2d 720, 724 (1976) (“equitable estoppel” will prevent party from asserting a statute of limitations defense where the party’s own acts or omissions contributed to statute’s running).

2024See Strader v. Beneficia l Fin. 16 Co. , 551 P.2d 720, 724 (1976) (“equitable estoppel” will prevent party from asserting a statute of limitations defense where the party’s own acts or omissions contributed to statute’s running ).

2009Olson, 174 P.3d at 858 (citing Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094, 1096-97 (Colo.1996)).

2007Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P2d 1094, 1096-97 (Colo.1996).

2026People v. Butler, 5 2017 COA 117, ¶ 14 .

2026People v. Butler, 2017 COA 117, ¶ 14 .

2015Co. , 2015 COA 83, ¶13 (finding that where an issue was brought to the trial court’s attention and the court ruled on it, the issue was preserved for appeal); see also SMLL, L.L.C. v. Peak Nat’l Bank , 111 P.3d 563, 564-65 (Colo. App. 2005) (holding that a statute of limitations defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss where the complaint shows that claims were brought outside the limitations period). 5 Neither party challenged this award, and thus we do not review its propriety on appeal. 6 This was not Ms. Holden’s first involvement in the case.

2015Co., 2015 COA 83, ¶ 13 , 370 P.3d 238 (finding that where an issue was brought to the trial court’s attention and the court ruled on it, the issue was preserved for appeal); see also SMLL, L.L.C. v. Peak Nat’l Bank, 111 P.3d 563 , 564-|S5 (Colo.App.2005) (holding that a statute of limitations defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss where the complaint shows that claims were brought outside the limitations period). 5 .

1989Co. v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.3d 1142, 1149 , 220 Cal.Rptr. 507, 512 (1985) (implied waiver of attorney-client privilege occurs “where the plaintiff has placed in issue a communication which goes to the heart of the claim in controversy”); League v. Vanice, 221 Neb. 34, 43 , 374 N.W.2d 849, 856 (1985) (party who raises issue of his lack of knowledge of a corporate transaction in order to avoid a statute-of-limitations defense impliedly waives attorney-client privilege with respect to that issue); United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff, 196 NJ.Super. 553, 562, 483 A.2d 821, 828 (1984) (when confid

1989Co. v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.3d 1142, 1149 , 220 Cal.Rptr. 507, 512 (1985) (implied waiver of attorney-client privilege occurs “where the plaintiff has placed in issue a communication which goes to the heart of the claim in controversy”); League v. Vanice, 221 Neb. 34, 43 , 374 N.W.2d 849, 856 (1985) (party who raises issue of his lack of knowledge of a corporate transaction in order to avoid a statute-of-limitations defense impliedly waives attorney-client privilege with respect to that issue); United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff, 196 NJ.Super. 553, 562, 483 A.2d 821, 828 (1984) (when confid

2011Comm'rs, 36 P.3d 135, 139 (Colo.App.2001), such a defense may be considered on a motion to dismiss when the bare allegations of the complaint reveal that the action was not brought within the required statutory period, SMLL, L.L.C,, 111 P.3d at 564 .

2005CAMAS Col *565 orado, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 36 P.3d 135 (Colo.App.2001).

2007Seq, e.g., Davis v. Bonebrake, 135 Colo. 506 , 313 P.2d 982 (1957).

2007Seq, e.g., Davis v. Bonebrake, 135 Colo. 506 , 313 P.2d 982 (1957).

2026And a court may grant such a motion only when “the material facts are undisputed and reasonable persons could not disagree about their import.” Sterenbuch, 266 P.3d at 432 (emphasis added). ¶ 15 In determining the accrual date for the statute of limitations, the focus is on when the plaintiff discovered, or should have discovered through reasonable diligence, the facts essential to the claim.

2026Ass’n, 166 P.3d 304, 307 (Colo. App. 2007). ¶ 14 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim based on a statute of limitations defense.

2026“Although a statute of limitations defense generally should not be raised on a motion to dismiss, such a defense may be considered . . . when the bare allegations of the complaint reveal that the action was not brought within the required statutory period.” Meyerstein v. City of Aspen, 282 P.3d 456, 470-71 (Colo. App. 2011) (citations omitted). ¶8 To overcome summary dismissal for failure to state a claim, the burden is on the claiming party to prove “sufficient facts that, if taken as true, suggest plausible grounds to support a claim for relief.” Patterson v. James, 2018 COA 173, ¶ 23 (citin

2026See People v. Market, 2020 COA 90, ¶¶ 15-24 ; see also People v. Schnorenberg, 2023 COA 82 , ¶¶ 1, 6, 40-44, 47 (vacating the 6 convictions based on counts that were barred by the statute of limitations and remanding the case for further proceedings on the other counts).

2025Id. at ¶ 32; see also Scott v. Scott, 136 P.3d 892, 896 (Colo. 2006) (“We hold that the same rules of finality apply in probate cases as in other civil cases; thus, an order of the probate court is final if it ends the particular action in which it is entered and leaves nothing further for the court pronouncing it 8 to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties as to that proceeding.”). ¶ 15 Joan argues that because the trial court didn’t specify whether its dismissal of Ciana’s complaint was with or without prejudice, we must presume that its dismissal was without prejudice

2020See State Farm, ¶ 16, 419 P.3d at 575 (noting that a client impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege when he or she—not the opposing party—asserts a claim or defense focusing on advice given by the attorney, thereby placing the allegedly privileged communications at issue).

2019Zertuche v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 706 P.2d 424, 426 (Colo. App. 1985); cf. Drake v. Tyner, 914 P.2d 519, 523 (Colo. App. 1996) (concluding that the defense adequately raised a statute of limitations defense in its summary judgment motion).

2019Zertuche v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 706 P.2d 424, 426 (Colo. App. 1985); cf. Drake v. Tyner, 914 P.2d 519, 523 (Colo. App. 1996) (concluding that the defense adequately raised a statute of limitations defense in its summary judgment motion).

2012See Garrett v. Arrowhead Improvement Ass'n, 826 P.2d 850, 855 (Colo.1992). 123 Here, in support of its equitable tolling argument, plaintiff submitted evidence that (1) defendants had provided it with assurance they were "investigating" the alleged breach and would "get back to" plaintiff, and (2) plaintiff believed filing suit would cause defendants to terminate the agreement and effectively put plaintiff out of business. 24 Viewing these factual assertions in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we agree with the district court's conclusion that they were insufficient as a matter of law to w

2011See Hernandez v. Woodard, 873 P.2d 20, 21 (Colo.App.1993) (discussing claim preclusion under its former name, "res judicata," and holding that res judicata is not applicable "if the plaintiff was unable to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action because of certain legal restraints"); In re Marriage of Wright, 841 P.2d 358, 860 (Colo.App.1992) (discussing claim preclusion under its former name, "res judicata," and holding that "res judicata does not apply when the initial forum lacked the authority to award the full measure of relief sought in the subsequent litigation").

2011See Hernandez v. Woodard, 873 P.2d 20, 21 (Colo.App.1993) (discussing claim preclusion under its former name, "res judicata," and holding that res judicata is not applicable "if the plaintiff was unable to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action because of certain legal restraints"); In re Marriage of Wright, 841 P.2d 358, 860 (Colo.App.1992) (discussing claim preclusion under its former name, "res judicata," and holding that "res judicata does not apply when the initial forum lacked the authority to award the full measure of relief sought in the subsequent litigation").

2010In People v. Lowry, 160 P.3d 396, 397 (Colo.App.2007), the defendant contended that a statute of limitations defense was jurisdictional and could not be waived.

2010Id.