Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court held that, under the Colorado Joint Rights and Obligations Act, a joint debtor's proportionate share of an obligation is calculated on a per capita rather than percentage-interest basis when another debtor settles with the creditor. The court further held that a debtor who settled before the collection suit should not be included in apportioning supplemental attorney fees generated during that suit. The court affirmed the court of appeals, with Justice Coats dissenting.
Holdings
- Under the Colorado Joint Rights and Obligations Act, a joint debtor's proportionate share is calculated on a per-capita basis by dividing the obligation by the total number of applicable joint debtors, not according to the debtors' percentage interests in the partnership.
- A debtor who settled before the collection suit and was never a judgment debtor is not included in calculating proportionate shares of attorney fees generated during that suit.
- A nonsettling debtor who pays more than his or her share may seek contribution from co-debtors.
Questions Presented
- Whether a joint debtor's proportionate share under the Colorado Joint Rights and Obligations Act is calculated on a percentage-interest basis or a per-capita basis after another debtor settles with the creditor.
- Whether a debtor who settled before the collection action and was never a judgment debtor should be included in calculating the shares of supplemental attorney fees incurred during that action.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Fogg v. Macaluso, 892 P.2d 271 (Colo. 1995)(followed)
- Colo. Div. of Employment & Training v. Parkview Episcopal Hosp., 725 P.2d 787 (Colo. 1986)(followed)
- Ryals v. St. Mary-Corwin Reg'l Med. Ctr., 10 P.3d 654 (Colo. 2000)(followed)
- A. Tenenbaum & Co., Inc. v. Colantuno, 3 P.3d 456 (Colo. App. 1999)(affirmed)
- Bohrer v. DeHart, 961 P.2d 472 (Colo. 1998)(followed)
- Simpson v. Morgan, 124 Colo. 441, 238 P.2d 200 (1951)(followed)
- Humphrey v. O'Connor, 940 P.2d 1015 (Colo. App. 1996)(followed)
- Schiffer v. United Grocers, Inc., 329 Or. 86, 989 P.2d 10 (1999)(persuasive)
- Walsh v. Miller, 51 Ohio St. 462, 38 N.E. 381 (1894)(persuasive)
- Ducey v. Patterson, 37 Colo. 216, 86 P. 109 (1906)(historical)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…