 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Silvern12/1/2005
al justification" means substantially frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious." Section 13-17-102(4), C.R.S. 2005.
A claim or defense is frivolous if the proponent can present no rational argument based on the evidence or the law to support it. Similarly, a claim or defense is groundless if the proponent's allegations, while sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, are not supported by any credible evidence at trial. W. United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1984). A vexatious claim or defense is one brought or maintained in bad faith. Fowler Irrevocable Trust 1992-1 v. City of Boulder, 992 P.2d 1188 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 17 P.3d 797 (Colo. 2001).
Attorney fees may also be assessed as a sanction for violating C.R.C.P. 11, which provides that an attorney's signature on a pleading certifies that the attorney believes the pleading is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
When a party requests a hearing regarding the award of attorney fees and costs under ยง 13-17-102, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing. In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d 1370 (Colo. 1997); cf. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth. v. Jagow, 30 P.3d 798 (Colo. App. 2001)(trial court did not err in denying fees without conducting a separate hearing, because the court had already presided over a hearing on the substantive issues in the case and had heard evidence from which the court could decide whether the claims were frivolous and groundless), aff'd, 49 P.3d 1151 (Colo. 2002).
Here, the trial court should have conducted a hearing before ruling on the motion. Accordingly, remand is required.
In light of this disposition, we need not address the remaining contentions of the parties.
The order is reversed, and the case is remanded for a hearing on Silvern's motion for sanctions and for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
JUDGE TAUBMAN and JUDGE HAWTHORNE concur.
|