In re Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

Citations

• 2017 COA 114
• 405 P.3d 499
• 2017 WL 3667337
• 2017 Colo. App. LEXIS 1078

Syllabus

The trial court ordered Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) to establish a conservatorship account for the benefit of Kylee Becker (the beneficiary) to be maintained by her father, Aaron Becker (Becker). It was intended to be a restricted account for the beneficiary's settlement funds obtained as a result of a personal injury claim. In its order, the court stated that no funds could be withdrawn from the account except by \separate certified order of this court.\ Wells Fargo complied with the order and deposited funds into the account, but allowed Becker to make unauthorized transfers from the account until it had a negative balance. The trial court issued a show cause order to Wells Fargo and Becker related to the removal of funds without a court order. After a hearing, the trial court found Becker and Wells Fargo jointly and severally liable for breach of fiduciary duty, and ordered Wells Fargo to restore the funds to the account. Wells Fargo moved to reconsider the order to restore funds, arguing that the trial court should have considered the percentage of fault attributable to it and Becker as required by CRS § 13-21-111.5. Wells Fargo requested that the trial court determine the relative degrees of liability between it and Becker regarding mismanagement of the account, and determine the amount of the depleted funds actually spent for the beneficiary's benefit, to not afford her a double recovery. The trial court denied the motion based on its power to supervise fiduciary administration of estates under CRS §§ 15-10-501 to -505. On appeal, Wells Fargo contended that the trial court erred when, in denying the motion for reconsideration, it did not apportion liability between Wells Fargo and Becker. Based on a plain reading of the statutes and their interpretation in appellate decisions, the trial court correctly determined that CRS § 13-21-111.5 does not apply in this case. Title 13 was intended to contemplate limitations on damages only for actions brought as