Fuentes v. Sanchez: Colorado Court Applies Intestate Succession to Real Property

Background

Judith Ann Alvarez and Andrew Alvarez were married in 1997 and jointly owned their residence in Adams County, Colorado, as tenants in common, each holding a 50% share. Judith passed away in 2000, survived by Andrew and her two adult children from a prior relationship, Juli-Andra Fuentes and her brother. No will was filed for Judith, leaving her estate to pass through intestate succession. Andrew later applied to serve as the personal representative of Judith’s estate in 2015 but died three months after his appointment. His will left his share of the property to his grandson, Jeffery Anthony Sanchez, Jr., who was also appointed as the personal representative of Andrew’s estate.

In 2018, Fuentes filed a petition to reopen Judith’s estate and sought formal appointment as personal representative. After reopening the case, she contested ownership of the property, asserting that Judith’s 50% interest should pass to Judith’s heirs—her children—under Colorado’s laws governing tenants in common. Sanchez, representing Andrew’s estate, petitioned for final settlement, arguing that Andrew’s estate was entitled to the property through intestate succession.

District Court Findings

The Adams County District Court determined that, under Colorado’s intestate succession statute, Andrew was entitled to the entire estate of Judith, including her 50% interest in the home. The court found that Judith’s estate was worth less than $80,000 at the time of her death, far below the $100,000 threshold established by the 2000 version of section 15-11-102(4), C.R.S. That statute granted the surviving spouse the first $100,000 of the estate plus one-half of the remainder when the decedent was survived by adult children not related to the surviving spouse. Because Judith’s estate fell below this amount, the court ruled that Andrew’s estate inherited her share of the home.

Sanchez also sought attorney fees, alleging that Fuentes’s petition was frivolous and groundless. The court granted his request, noting that Fuentes had not responded to the motion for fees.

Appellate Review

Fuentes appealed, challenging both the property determination and the award of attorney fees. She argued that the district court should have applied the common law principles of tenancy in common rather than the intestate succession statute. The Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the court correctly applied section 15-11-101(1), which provides that any part of a decedent’s estate not disposed of by will passes under the statutes of intestate succession. The appellate court confirmed that real property owned by a decedent at death is subject to intestate succession unless transferred by will or other legal instrument.

The appellate court also upheld the district court’s factual finding that the estate’s value was less than $80,000 and concluded that Andrew was entitled to the entire estate as the surviving spouse. Because Judith’s estate consisted only of her 50% ownership in the home, her interest properly passed to Andrew under the governing statute.

Attorney Fees Determination

However, the appellate court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs. It held that the district court failed to make the necessary factual findings required under sections 13-17-102(6) and 13-17-103, C.R.S., which mandate that a court must explain why a filing was substantially frivolous, groundless, or vexatious before imposing sanctions. The appellate court emphasized that, even when a party fails to respond to a motion for attorney fees, the trial court must independently evaluate the statutory factors before entering an award. The case was remanded for the district court to make proper findings.

Court’s Ruling

On July 14, 2022, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision that Andrew’s estate was entitled to Judith’s property under the intestate succession statute but vacated and remanded the attorney fee order for additional findings. The court denied Sanchez’s request for appellate attorney fees, determining that Fuentes’s appeal was not frivolous.

Assistance with Estate Planning Matters

If you are facing disputes involving intestate succession, probate administration, or estate property distribution, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with estate planning matters. Contact our team to learn how we can help you protect your family’s interests and navigate complex estate proceedings.