Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Crop Prod. Servs., Inc.

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Fifth Division

May 7, 2015

Kirk Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Crop Production Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellee

Editorial Note:

This Opinion is subject to revision upon final publication.

Larimer County District Court No. 14CV17. Honorable C. Michelle Brinegar, Judge.

Cross & Liechty, P.C., Robert M. Liechty, Englewood, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bryan Cave LLP, Michael J. Hofmann, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

TERRY, JUDGE

Page 1076

[¶1] In this tort action, plaintiff, Kirk Williams, appeals the order of the district court dismissing his suit against defendant, Crop Production Services, Inc. Plaintiff filed the complaint two years and one day after the accrual date, and urges us to apply C.R.C.P. 6(a)(1) in computing the two-year statute of limitations period for tort actions under section 13-80-102(1)(a), C.R.S. 2014. We conclude that C.R.C.P. 6(a)(1) does not apply to computation of the limitations period under that statutory section. In reaching this conclusion, we disagree with decisions of other divisions of this court to the extent they relied on C.R.C.P. 6(a)(1) to compute periods of years for statutory limitations purposes.

[¶2] We conclude that the anniversary date time computation method controls for calculating a period of years under section 13-80-102(1)(a), so that an action must be filed no later than the second anniversary of the accrual date. Because the district court correctly computed the limitations period under this statute, and correctly concluded that plaintiff filed his complaint after the limitations period expired, we affirm the judgment in favor of defendant.

I. Standards of Review and Applicable Law

[¶3] We review de novo a district court's dismissal of an action based on a statute of limitations defense. SMLL, L.L.C. v. Peak Nat'l Bank,

Page 1077

111 P.3d 563, 564 (Colo.App. 2005).

[¶4] We review a district court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth. v. 455 Co., 3 P.3d 18, 22 (Colo. 2000). While the date of accrual of a claim is usually a question of fact, if the undisputed facts clearly establish the date in question, the issue may be decided as a matter of law. Winkler v. Rocky Mountain Conference of United Methodist Church, 923 P.2d 152, 158-59 (Colo.App. 1995). Because the facts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.