Munoz-Hoyos v. De Cortez
Decision Date | 02 April 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 08CA1301.,08CA1301. |
Citation | 207 P.3d 951 |
Parties | Paola MUNOZ-HOYOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Martha Munoz DE CORTEZ and Daniel Rave-Munoz, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Hess & Schubert, LLP, Theodore G. Hess, William Schubert, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John M. Lassalette, P.C., John M. Lassalette, Aspen, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee Martha Munoz de Cortez.
Allen, Wertz & Feldman, LLP, Jeffrey Wertz, Aspen, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee Daniel Rave-Munoz.
Opinion by Chief Judge DAVIDSON.
Plaintiff, Paola Munoz-Hoyos, filed a tort action against defendants, Martha Munoz de Cortez and Daniel Rave-Munoz, asserting claims for assault, false imprisonment, and involuntary servitude. Plaintiff lives in Colorado, according to the complaint, but she is not a United States citizen. Because of her non-citizen status, defendants filed a motion to require plaintiff to post a cost bond as a nonresident of Colorado. The trial court granted the motion and ordered plaintiff to post a $20,000 bond. When she failed to do so, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the dismissal was in error. We agree and accordingly reverse and remand.
A cost bond is required "in all cases in law and equity where the plaintiff, or the person for whose use an action is to be commenced, is not a resident of this state." § 13-16-101, C.R.S.2008; Hytken v. Wake, 68 P.3d 508, 511 (Colo.App.2002) ().
Here, the trial court ordered plaintiff to post a cost bond because, "[b]y the very fact that Plaintiff is not a United States citizen she cannot under the law be a resident of the State of Colorado." Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that, as a non-citizen, plaintiff could not be a resident of Colorado under section 13-16-101. We agree.
Because the only question here is one of law, our review is de novo. See Evans v. Romer, 854 P.2d 1270, 1274 (Colo.1993). Thus, contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff's failure to order additional portions of the record is not dispositive of her appeal because we have a sufficient record to determine the issue before us.
Whether a person is a resident or domiciliary of a particular state is determined, for state law purposes, by reference to the laws of that state. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 13 (1971) ( ); see also Apache Village, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 776 P.2d 1154, 1155 (Colo.App.1989) ( ); Sabell v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co., 36 Colo.App. 60, 69, 536 P.2d 1160, 1166 (1975) ( ); cf. Napletana v. Hillsdale College, 385 F.2d 871, 872 (6th Cir.1967) ().
Thus, a person's immigration status under federal law does not in itself preclude a finding of residency or domicile under state law. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 227 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (); St. Joseph's Hosp. & Medical Center v. Maricopa County, 142 Ariz. 94, 688 P.2d 986, 992-93 (1984) ( ); Bustamante v. Bustamante, 645 P.2d 40, 42 (Utah 1982) ( ).
In Colorado, whether a person is a resident of the state is determined by that person's physical presence and intent to remain. See Gordon v. Blackburn, 618 P.2d 668, 671 (Colo.1980) ( ); Carlson v. District Court, 116 Colo. 330, 338, 180 P.2d 525, 529-30 (1947) ( ); Sharp v. McIntire, 23 Colo. 99, 102, 46 P. 115, 116 (1896) ( ).
We have found no Colorado authority suggesting that, in enacting the cost bond statute, the General Assembly meant that the term "resident" be determined by something other than these uniformly accepted criteria. See Gallion v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 171 P.3d 217, 221 (Colo.2007) ( ). Cf. §§ 24-76.5-101 to -103, C.R.S. 2008 ( ). Furthermore, the general test of residency is consistent with the objective of the cost bond statute, which is to secure payment of costs from a plaintiff whose absence from the state is more likely than not.
Here, by concluding that plaintiff could not be a resident of Colorado as a matter of law, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Kornegay
...(distinguishing “residence” from “legal residence” or “domicile” in election context). ¶ 14 Recently, in Munoz–Hoyos v. de Cortez, 207 P.3d 951, 952 (Colo.App.2009), a division of this court held that a plaintiff's status as a non-citizen of the United States did not preclude her from being......
- A.Z. v. Higher Educ. Student Assistance Auth.
-
ARTICLE 16
...but, instead, on the evaluation of her place of domicile and her subjective intent to remain in the state. Munoz-Hoyos v. de Cortez, 207 P.3d 951 (Colo. App. 2009). Trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff's non-citizen status alone precluded her from qualifying as a resident for purposes......
-
ARTICLE 16 COSTS CIVIL ACTIONS
...but, instead, on the evaluation of her place of domicile and her subjective intent to remain in the state. Munoz-Hoyos v. de Cortez, 207 P.3d 951 (Colo. App. 2009). Trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff's non-citizen status alone precluded her from qualifying as a resident for purposes......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.5 • COST BONDS AND JUDGMENT BONDS
...delay in filing a cost bond is the result of neglect or refusal is reviewed under abuse of discretion standard); Munoz-Hoyos v. de Cortez, 207 P.3d 951 (Colo. App. 2009) (plaintiff's non-citizen status alone does not preclude the plaintiff from qualifying as a resident for purposes of § 13-......
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.2 PARTIES
...v. Sievers, 20 Colo. App. 109, 77 P. 261 (1904).[83] C.R.S. § 13-16-103.[84] C.R.S. § 13-16-102.[85] Munoz-Hoyos v. Munoz de Cortez, 207 P.3d 951, 952-54 (Colo. App. 2009). [86] C.R.S. § 13-21-109.[87] C.R.S. § 13-21-109(3), (4).[88] C.R.S. § 13-21-109(3).[89] Stadler v. Devito, 931 P.2d 57......