Opinion
Court of Appeals No. 22CA1076
06-15-2023
IN RE the ESTATE OF Leonard Paul LIEBE Sr., Deceased. Chelsea Ducray, Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard Paul Liebe, Sr., Appellant, v. Myranda Hunter, Appellee.
Wegener Lane & Evans, P.C., Schyeler Gilman, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Appellant Chris Mahre & Associates, Chris Mahre, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Appellee
Wegener Lane & Evans, P.C., Schyeler Gilman, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Appellant
Chris Mahre & Associates, Chris Mahre, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Appellee
Opinion by JUDGE FOX
¶ 1 Chelsea Ducray, the daughter of decedent, Leonard Paul Liebe Sr., and personal representative (PR) of his estate, appeals the district court's order giving effect to Liebe's gift of a vehicle during his lifetime, even though he died without transferring title. We conclude that the district court did not err and affirm.
I. Background
¶ 2 Liebe, then sixty-eight years old, was hospitalized with COVID-19 on December 28, 2021. While in an intensive care unit, Liebe called Myranda Hunter—whom he treated as his adoptive daughter—and told her that he wanted her to have his 2021 Ford Bronco. He then arranged for a video call with Ducray, his employee John Edwards, and Hunter and her husband. During that video call, Liebe effectively repeated his intent to give the Bronco to Hunter by informing Ducray why he was not gifting it to her.
¶ 3 Liebe died without a will on January 1, 2022. In the probate proceedings, Ducray refused to transfer title to the Bronco to Hunter, so Hunter asked the district court to order Ducray to do so.
¶ 4 After a May 11, 2022, hearing on the matter, the district court ordered Ducray to sign title to the Bronco over to Hunter and later entered a corresponding written order on September 1, 2022.
II. Was the Gift Valid Without Title Transfer?
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
¶ 5 Whether the requirements of a gift have been met (i.e., donative intent coupled with an act that consummates the gift) is a question of fact, and if the district court's determination has record support, it is binding on review. Love v. Olson , 645 P.2d 861, 862–63 (Colo. App. 1982), superseded by statute on other grounds , Ch. 280, secs. 1–6, 1991 Colo. Sess. Laws 1681–90. Compare Hardy v. Carrington , 87 Colo. 461, 468, 288 P. 620, 623 (1930) (the plaintiff made a valid gift of a car, having clearly expressed his intention to do so, and such intention having been consummated through acceptance of the gift), with Slagle v. Constr. Progress Exposition , 100 Colo. 292, 293, 67 P.2d 623, 623 (1937) (alleged gift of a car failed because the car had not been delivered to the plaintiff).
¶ 6 We review de novo the district court's conclusions of law and defer to the court's findings of fact if any evidence in the record supports them. People in Interest of C.J.R. , 2016 COA 133, ¶ 14, 409 P.3d 536.
B. Analysis
¶ 7 Ducray contends that, because Liebe never transferred title to the Bronco as required to complete a gift, the district court erred by recognizing the gift to Hunter. Before addressing Ducray's challenge, we summarize the district court proceedings.
1. District Court Proceedings
¶ 8 The district court heard the following:
• Liebe had served as a father figure to Hunter since she was a teenager; they were in each other's lives for over twenty-five years.
• Liebe's obituary—which Hunter drafted and Ducray approved—identified Hunter as Liebe's adopted daughter.
• After telling Hunter he wanted her to have his Bronco, Liebe insisted on video-recording his wish.
• Ducray, Hunter, and other close friends were present when the video recording was created.
• In the video recording, from his hospital bed and wearing an oxygen mask, Liebe asked for Ducray and inquired: "Did they explain to you why you're not gonna get the Bronco? ... It doesn't make sense for you to take the Bronco to Florida ...." (Ducray resided in Florida but traveled to Colorado the day after Liebe was hospitalized.) Ducray responded: "I know. Yep."
• Edwards testified that, while Liebe was hospitalized, Liebe instructed him to provide Hunter with a set of keys to the Bronco. Liebe also asked Edwards to deliver $25,000 in cash from his safe to Ducray. Edwards complied with those instructions while Liebe was alive.
• Liebe asked Hunter to allow Ducray to use the Bronco while she was in Colorado. After Liebe's funeral, Ducray left the second set of Bronco keys she had used and Liebe's death certificate (to facilitate title transfer) with Hunter.
• Liebe never transferred title to the Bronco to Hunter.
• On January 8, 2021, Ducray sent Hunter the following message: "Hey sis. I think your going to have to put the Bronco on your insurance for now."
¶ 9 Based on the testimony presented and the video recording, the court found that Liebe was
lucid, clear, consistent and thoughtful in expressing his wishes. ... [Liebe] expressed his wishes as to what should be done with his business property. He also acknowledged his intent to make two gifts. One was a gift of $25,000 to Ducray. The other was a gift of his Ford Bronco to Hunter. ... To effectuate the gifts, before his death [Liebe] directed [Edwards] his trusted employee, to open his safe and retrieve $25,000 in cash and also retrieve the second set of keys to the Bronco. Edwards was instructed to deliver the cash to Ducray and the keys to Hunter. Edwards did so .... Before making the gift of the Bronco, [Liebe] had directed that the Bronco be loaned to Ducray for her use during her stay in Grand Junction.
¶ 10 The court considered, and rejected, Ducray's assertion that one may not make a gift of an automobile without signing and delivering the vehicle's title. It reasoned that title may be required to register a motor vehicle—to secure license plates and to use the vehicle on the highways—but it is not required for ownership.
¶ 11 Referencing Sachtjen v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. , 49 P.3d 1146, 1149 (Colo. 2002), the court noted that certain statutory provisions, read alone, might inaccurately suggest that an ownership right requires title. But whether a gift of a vehicle has been made and completed is a factual matter determined by examining the totality of the evidence. Observing that Liebe lay intubated in a hospital's COVID-19 isolation ward and could not have visitors, the court said it was unrealistic to expect him to execute and deliver a car title. The court concluded that Liebe's announcement to Ducray (and others) that he was giving the Bronco to Hunter and his arranging for Hunter to have possession of the keys were all that was needed to complete the gift. Because the Bronco was not a part of Liebe's estate at his death, the court instructed Ducray to sign the title over to Hunter. 2. Did Liebe's Failure to Transfer Title Defeat the Gift?
¶ 12 Ducray cites Colorado's Certificate of Title Act (the Act) to support her argument that the gift was not complete as a matter of law. § 42-6-109(1), C.R.S. 2022 (providing that no purchaser shall acquire any "right, title, or interest" in a motor vehicle unless he first obtains the certificate of title).
¶ 13 The parties do not cite—and we are unaware of—any Colorado case addressing whether a vehicle can be gifted without transfer of title. However, numerous Colorado cases about vehicle sales overwhelmingly hold that a certificate of title is not necessary to determine ownership of a vehicle. See Hall v. Hong Seung Gee , 725 P.2d 1164, 1165–66 (Colo. App. 1986) (summarizing Colorado cases recognizing sale of a vehicle even though certificate of title was not delivered); see also Morrison v. Droll , 41 Colo. App. 354, 357, 588 P.2d 383, 385 (1978) (non-delivery of certificate did not prevent change of ownership as between parties to sale transaction); Doenges-Glass, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. , 175 Colo. 518, 522–23, 488 P.2d 879, 881–82 (1971) (noting that a Colorado title is not required to be transferred for a Colorado purchaser to acquire right, title, or interest to motor vehicle). Whether parties have transferred ownership depends on the facts of a particular case. See Martinez v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 961 P.2d 531, 533 (Colo. App. 1997) (certificate of title does not represent conclusive proof of ownership; rather, it evidences only a rebuttable presumption of ownership). And in the context of gifted mining shares, the Colorado Supreme Court opined that there was "no difference between the evidence necessary to prove title in [the] case of a sale and in [the] case of a gift." Thomas v. Thomas , 70 Colo. 29, 31, 197 P. 243, 244 (1921) ("A delivery of possession, with intent to pass a present right of property, is a completed gift.").
¶ 14 We agree with the district court that Liebe's gift of the Bronco to Hunter was completed without titling the vehicle in Hunter's name. Liebe's videotaped instructions were clear and unambiguous. There was no question that he wanted Hunter to have the Bronco, and Liebe did more than just express a desire—he took concrete action to evidence his intent by directing Edwards to deliver the keys to Hunter. See Love , 645 P.2d at 862–63. Edwards did as he was directed.
¶ 15 Requiring that title be transferred to give effect to Liebe's wishes adds an element to gifts that Colorado has not traditionally required. The Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles requires a title transfer to register a vehicle, § 42-6-106, C.R.S. 2022; Div. of Motor Vehicles Rule 18, 1 Code Colo. Regs. 204-10 (effective July 31, 2021-Jan. 29, 2022), presumably to reduce instances of theft or fraud and to promote insurance coverage for third parties injured by a vehicle's driver. See, e.g. , Guy Martin Buick, Inc. v. Colo. Springs Nat'l Bank , 184 Colo. 166, 171–72, 519 P.2d 354, 357 (1974) (certificate of title allows third parties to readily and reliably ascertain the status of a seller's title); Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allen , 102 P.3d 333, 339–40 (Colo. 2004) (automobile insurance coverage terminates upon a change of ownership of the covered automobile unless the insurer agrees otherwise). That risk is mitigated, if not eliminated, where, as here, the trial court made a legal decision—based on facts supported by record evidence—validating the gift.
¶ 16 Ducray's temporary use of the Bronco while she was visiting Colorado also does not invalidate the gift, see Morrison , 41 Colo. App. at 357, 588 P.2d at 385 (sale was recognized even though the seller reserved the right to use a car and title had not yet passed to the buyer), or undo Hunter's contemporaneous acceptance when Liebe arranged for the delivery of the keys.
¶ 17 Because the district court's findings have record support, we cannot disturb them. Love , 645 P.2d at 862–63 ; C.J.R. , ¶ 14.
III. Other Issues
¶ 18 To the extent Ducray also argues that the Bronco was a testamentary gift that fails for lack of a writing, we need not address that issue because we have concluded that Liebe made a valid gift during his lifetime. See Taylor v. Taylor , 2016 COA 100, ¶ 31, 381 P.3d 428 (an appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record); see also Johnson v. Griffin , 240 P.3d 404, 406 (Colo. App. 2009) (recognizing that an issue is moot when a judgment would have no practical effect on an existing controversy).
¶ 19 There are a smattering of sub-issues in Ducray's opening brief and reply brief that we will not consider because they were not presented to the district court, they are conclusory and underdeveloped, or they were raised for the first time in the reply brief. See Salazar v. Pub. Tr. Inst. , 2022 COA 109M, ¶¶ 34–35, 522 P.3d 242 (if an argument is undeveloped or raised for the first time on appeal, it is unpreserved for appellate review); W. Innovations, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp. , 187 P.3d 1155, 1160 (Colo. App. 2008) (declining to address issue raised for the first time in reply brief).
IV. Disposition
¶ 20 The district court's order is affirmed.
JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE LIPINSKY concur.