Parsons v. Shackleford, 15783.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1948
• Docket Number: 15783.
• Citation: 117 Colo. 545,188 P.2d 587
• Parties: PARSONS et al. v. SHACKLEFORD.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

188 P.2d 587

117 Colo. 545

PARSONS et al. v. SHACKLEFORD.

No. 15783.

Supreme Court of Colorado, in Department.

February 24, 1948

Error to Gunnison County Court; C. C. McWilliams, Judge.

Proceeding by James D. Parsons and another against John J. Shackleford to recover the amount allegedly lost because of the defendant's improper administration as guardian of the estate of the plaintiffs while minors. To review a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiffs bring error.

Judgment affirmed.

Norman H. Comstock and Dee H. Beer, both of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.

Clifford H. Stone, of Denver, and Porter, Stewart & Carroll, of Gunnison (Robert G. Porter, of Gunnison, of counsel), for defendant in error.

LUXFORD Justice.

The parties hereto will be mentioned as petitioners (plaintiffs in error here) and respondent (defendant in error) as they appeared in the trial court. In 1911 respondent was appointed by the county court of Gunnison county, Colorado, as guardian of the estate of two minor children, petitioners herein. He continued as such guardian until the minors became of age, one in 1928, the other in 1930, at which times the court fixed dates for final settlement of their estates, each was duly when fied, and each was present in court when the final reports of respondent were approved by the court and respondent discharged. December 14, 1939, petitioners instituted this proceeding by filing their petition in the aforesaid county court, charging that respondent had improperly administered their estate, to their loss, and praying judgment against him for the amount of such alleged loss. The trial court found respondent not guilty of fraud, and that he had rendered faithful service and exercised careful business management in handling petitioners' estates. Judgment was for respondent and petitioners bring this case here for review.

Limitations of Actions. This proceeding is barred by the five-year statute of limitations. It will be noted that these estates were closed and respondent guardian discharged nine and eleven years, respectively, Before this proceeding was instituted. Respondent invoked, inter alia, section 14 chapter 102, '35 C.S.A., which reads: 'Bills of relief, in case of the existence of a trust not cognizable by the courts of common law, and in all other cases not herein provided for, shall be filed within five years after the cause thereof shall accrue, and not after.' We have held 'that full possession of the means of detecting a fraud is equivalent to knowledge.' Bowman v. May, 102 Colo. 417, 80 P.2d 327, 328; Pipe v. Smith, 5 Colo 146.

All the matters and transactions in controversy here were of record in the county court of Gunnison...