Grand County District Court No. 14CV30031 Honorable Mary C. Hoak, Judge
The Law Firm of John A. Lobus, P.C., John A. Lobus, Lakewood, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
The Whitmer Law Firm, LLC, Kent Whitmer, William Berry, Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants
¶1 Joseph T. Pandy, Elizabeth Pandy, and the Joseph Pandy Jr. & Elizabeth Pandy Living Trust (collectively the Pandys) petition under C.A.R. 4.2 for interlocutory review of the district court's order denying their C.R.C.P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. We grant the petition, affirm the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.
¶2 In August 2010, plaintiff, Independent Bank, a Michigan banking corporation (the Bank), obtained two judgments against Joseph Pandy in the amounts of $923, 356.14 and $34, 954.12 in a Michigan state court. In April 2012, the Bank domesticated the Michigan judgment in the district court in Grand County, Colorado. It then filed transcripts of the domesticated judgments with the Grand County Clerk and Recorder in January 2013 to obtain a judgment lien against Joseph Pandy's real property in the county, including the C Lazy U Homesteads. At that time, the Joseph Pandy Jr. & Elizabeth Pandy Living Trust (the Trust) held title to the C Lazy U Homesteads, which the Bank learned when it deposed Joseph Pandy in April 2013.
¶3 In March 2014, the Bank filed a "Complaint for Quiet Title and Decree of Foreclosure" against the Pandys. The complaint sought a decree that the judgment lien against Joseph Pandy individually was valid against his interest in the Trust. It also sought an order directing the sheriff to sell Joseph Pandy's interest in the trust property to satisfy the domesticated judgment against him.
¶4 The Pandys filed a C.R.C.P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the complaint was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in section 13-80-101(1)(k), C.R.S. 2014. In a written order, the district court concluded that the three-year statute of limitations in section 13-80-101(1)(k) was inapplicable to the Bank's complaint. Specifically, the court ruled that because the Bank's complaint was an attempt to collect on a domesticated judgment, and not an action to obtain a new judgment, the statute of limitations in section 13-80-101(1)(k) did not apply. Rather, it determined that under section 13-52-102(1), C.R.S. 2014, the Bank had six years from the date of the Michigan judgment to enforce its judgment lien on Joseph Pandy's property.
¶5 The court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Pandys filed a C.A.R. 4.2 petition for interlocutory appeal.
II. C.A.R. 4.2
¶6 The Pandys contend that their petition for interlocutory appeal satisfies the requirements of C.A.R. 4.2. We agree.
A. Applicable Law
¶7 C.A.R. 4.2 provides:
(a)Discretionary Interlocutory Appeals. Upon certification by the trial court, or stipulation of all parties, the court of appeals may, in its discretion, allow an ...