Estate of McClure ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>24CA0089 Estate of McClure 10-03-2024 </div>
<div> <span> </span> <span> </span> <span> </span> <span> </span> <span> </span> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0089 </div>
<div>Pueblo County District Court No. 23PR30096 </div>
<div>Honorable <span>Timothy O’Shea</span>, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the Matter of the <span>Estate of <span>Jonna Kay McClure, </span></span>deceased. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joseph Anthony Lopez<span>, </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellant, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Stephanie L. Moore, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Appellee. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ORDERS AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division III </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE GOMEZ </div>
<div>Dunn and Navarro, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 3, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>William <span>J. <span>Ballas, Pueblo, Colorado, for Appellant </span></span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Charles D. <span>Esquibel</span>, Pueblo, Colorado, for Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>In this probate case, Joseph Anthony Lopez appeals the trial </span>
</div>
<div>court’s <span>orders rejecting his claim that he was the common law </span>
</div>
<div>spouse of the decedent, Jonna Kay McClure, and appointing the </div>
<div>decedent’s sister,<span> Stephanie L. Moore, <span>as </span>personal representative of </span>
</div>
<div>the estate. In addition to challenging the trial <span>court’s rulings on </span>the </div>
<div>claimed common law marriage and the appointment of a personal </div>
<div>representative, he also challenges the trial <span>court’s </span>admission of </div>
<div>evidence from the decedent’s <span>former attorney during the </span>
</div>
<div>proceedings. <span>We reject Lopez’s challenges and affirm the <span></span>court’s </span>
</div>
<div>orders<span>. <span> <span>Ho</span>wever, w<span>e deny Moore’s request </span>seeking appellate </span></span>
</div>
<div>attorney fees on the grounds that the appeal is frivolous. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> <span>After McClure’s death<span> in 2023, Moore petitioned the trial court </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>to find that McClure had died intestate and to determine her heirs. </div>
<div>Moore also nominated herself to serve <span>as </span>personal representative of </div>
<div>the estate.<span> </span>In response, Lopez asserted that he was <span>McClure’s</span> </div>
<div>common law spouse and asked that he be appointed as the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPQTMEW5IF&amp;Expires=1728882210&amp;Signature=EmF3KPppl2zED3BOnAlFCb%2F8%2BE8%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEHQaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBCN4VHcO%2FS20gXqQoRnNK%2Fo%2BvuP26DxtAAlQ1lEhdRdAiEA4OdpdpZzQvOotlGIWnQY%2By4URMdHfgMtcu%2FPK4sGe1AquwUIzf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDJTOefVJ%2FPHZRAi8eCqPBXwKk6gxf%2FWRB2QlAoO0r310LRtMK1YBlLsBvg3l8cm6A82YXeHbIO99F1QblZFZZisj3BdRpeJTA80xp7FhLwMQIzRzwt%2Ft0wWRrMXZw2IEMaNVQye%2FFgRme3YRCiqQSBz%2B7jsUTY%2BTq7F6YQ0wIRHxSlwA2Vv0VJXL%2BJpkh%2BpluStVJTXLPOYDUvKe0KjeLbn5HdWQZy3yAaC89%2FGJru9Hs28tM5HLehTm%2BWIsBGO8Kj9eoWHMlmdD2Oa596Gwv6B%2FEbvyZxAZyXVfYefNOO0yotuT3pOo3FlN75i5H3Zl%2B%2FSQrL8Z420Lw5UbSsgKB4ZM%2B5M1KPVDnIhOkSWZsqhlwa3RNnxCN4umJIsUjhZwsJ%2BN6aD1QjYAQdPsg1VXSqllyqmuemRz%2BP9DdhF%2BI0RLJkyniguJlTNW%2FFADxyFER8g6yb9v1KhYr29e%2FGBseLyRojUq4tFygPQes%2B3qLTFuEQy52rtdB%2Bg5P5PeQ6Fkj0Q%2BcPUaBQ993Nbt2ZOXOymDJscVbdfbP9RxDzIwZINBK6cRHDbeuTg1ak26nZ5aruZenLm1MdLtjG%2Fa4hNY5Y%2F0YcnBXUEhm1DJdy7ydlOJJmoVzhTefnQwZDpauE6r5CCc8E%2FkTCk1UIl48n2bgfor%2FbCjX57b2qDDcGyLywPy%2BbQoyxzfcs0cqJtfvoIc9LHebgRpU17ZSXis7OqwuSprtsrkO7XlEgYe4wxxU7HJLG7iVrY0ruDE9jxUiTgvaKe%2B1zWuXqnYKHSf5IDq%2BeOFKTcUhdSdE3loA8sDFdkzasvffSKBXMZmNzh62xiO4tHgKqXt4J%2FiyqtldWSbcH73mnJ2Nv4qdDwgSJKijP%2B0oPg6GKHGW2%2FrBL6SBo0wgrCyuAY6sQFHYqK8KF7yXBmaqM%2F1kYuhQ0seuO5a5EvNDzP52TOlcHYKrNIbW3BRGejrD5pVI26z5DLTUoWPaoa3%2FGeUb7AxYBVhEQbiNPcbtbL1bCTqV3etmfLPXN0VbueyI%2Bva7fQgtZOEv0gzuzcU2n4vc8XcmZoU7MwhKTI4nj8Cb4zSqRsfP%2F%2BLL2Ee%2FFUsJYJqcQATaNt3EcwvWq3k9WREILdsz2g4L1tp%2BkhuLQUowCbQw9I%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>personal representative.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>The court scheduled a two-day hearing t<span>o </span></span>
</div>
<div>resolve the issues.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>Before the hearing, Moore became aware of <span>a “Cohabitation</span> </span>
</div>
<div>Agreement<span>”</span><span> between McClure and Lopez that an attorney had </span>
</div>
<div>drafted for McClure before her death.<span> </span>That draft agreement <span>—</span> </div>
<div>which Lopez said he never received and apparently neither <span>he</span> nor </div>
<div>McClure ever executed <span>—</span> provided, in part: </div>
<div>Each of [u]s is an unmarried person. . . . We </div>
<div>are not married to each other or to anyone else </div>
<div>as of the date of this Agreement. If anyone has </div>
<div>ever received any impression by our conduct </div>
<div>that we were or are married, it was a </div>
<div>misunderstanding. Our cohabitation is an </div>
<div>unmarried cohabitation. No marriage between </div>
<div>us has existed or is intended to exist under </div>
<div>Colorado law or the laws of any other </div>
<div>jurisdiction. No future conduct of ours shall </div>
<div>be deemed to constitute holding our </div>
<div>relationship as a marriage.<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> McClure and Lopez met in 2008, while McClure was married <span></span>to </div>
<div>John McClure. The McClures divorced in May 2009, <span></span>and John </div>
<div>McClure later passed away. Shortly after the divorce, <span></span>McClure and </div>
<div>Lopez began a romantic relationship, and, in August 2009, Lo<span></span>pez </div>
<div>moved in with McClure. They cohabitated from then until </div>
<div>McClure’s death <span>about thirteen and a half years later.<span> </span></span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pf3" data-dest-detail='[3,"XYZ",69,170,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:299.498333px;bottom:877.999444px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>The draft agreement went on to <span>provide for the parties’ respective </span>
</div>
<div>property rights and financial obligations at that time as well as </div>
<div>upon the termination of their cohabitation.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>Moore sought the disclosure of evidence regarding the </span>
</div>
<div>attorney’s representation of McClure, and later <span>Moore sought the </span>
</div>
<div>admission of that evidence, arguing that it was relevant to wheth<span></span>er </div>
<div>McClure believed she was married to Lopez.<span> </span>Lopez objected to both </div>
<div>the discovery and the later admission of th<span>at</span> evidence, arguing t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>it was protected by the attorney-client privilege.<span> </span>The trial court </div>
<div>overruled both objections, allowed the discovery, and admitted the </div>
<div>evidence at the hearing under the testamentary exception to t<span></span>he </div>
<div>attorney-client privilege.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>During the two-day hearing, the court heard evidence from </span>
</div>
<div>both sides, including testimony from Lopez, testimony from several </div>
<div>people who knew McClure and Lopez throughout their relationship, </div>
<div>records of <span>McClure’s and Lopez’s </span>property ownership and tax </div>
<div>filings, a<span>nd</span> evidence regarding the draft Cohabitation Agreement.<span></span> </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>The court later entered an order finding that the evidence </span>
</div>
<div>didn<span>’</span><span>t clearly establish that McClure and Lopez mutually agree<span></span>d to </span>
</div>
<div>be in a marital relationship and, thus, that they were not common </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>law marri<span>ed</span><span>. </span>The court therefore determined that Moore had </div>
<div>priority to be appointed as personal representative.<span> </span>Two days later, </div>
<div>the court entered <span>an</span> order appointing Moore as personal </div>
<div>representative <span>and determining McClure’s heirs (</span>who did not </div>
<div>include Lopez).<span> </span>This appeal followed. </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Common Law Marriage </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>Lopez contends that the trial court erred in finding that <span>he</span> and </span>
</div>
<div>McClure were not common law married.<span> </span>We disagree. </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> <span>“A<span> determination of whether a common law marriage exists </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>turns on issues of fact and credibility, which are properly <span></span>within the </div>
<div>trial court’s discretion.” <span>In re Estate of Yudkin<span>, 2021 CO 2, ¶ <span>16 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>(quoting <span>People v. Lucero</span>, 747 P.2d 660, 665 (Colo. 1987)).<span> </span>
</div>
<div>“Accordingly, we review the [court’s] factual findings for clear erro<span></span>r </div>
<div>and [its] common law marriage finding for an abuse of <span></span>discretion.” </div>
<div>Id. <span>A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it has no support in t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>record. <span>Blakeland Drive Invs., LLP IV v. Taghavi</span>, 2023 COA 30<span></span>M, </div>
<div>¶ <span>28</span><span>.</span><span> </span>And a court abuses its discretion <span>if</span> its decision is manifestly </div>
<div>arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair or is based on an erroneous </div>
<div>understanding or application of the law.<span> </span><span>In re Marriage of </span>
</div>
<div>Badawiyeh<span>, 2023 COA 4, ¶ 9. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>In <span>Hogsett v. Neale</span><span>, </span>the supreme court established an updated </span>
</div>
<div>test for determining whether a common law marriage exists: </div>
<div>[A] common law marriage may be established </div>
<div>by the mutual consent or agreement of the </div>
<div>couple to enter the legal and social institution </div>
<div>of marriage, followed by conduct manifesting </div>
<div>that mutual agreement. The key question is </div>
<div>whether the parties mutually intended to enter </div>
<div>a <span>marital</span><span> relationship <span>—</span> that is, to share a life </span>
</div>
<div>together as spouses in a committed, intimate </div>
<div>relationship of mutual support and mutual </div>
<div>obligation. </div>
<div>2021 CO 1, ¶ <span>49</span><span>.</span><span> </span>Where there is no evidence of an express </div>
<div>agreement to marry, the court may infer the existence of a marital </div>
<div>relationship from the parties’ conduct. <span>Id.</span><span> <span>This involves </span></span>“a flexible </div>
<div>inquiry into the totality of the circumstances that relies on the </div>
<div>factfinder’s credibility determinations and weighing of the <span></span>evidence.” </div>
<div>Id. <span>at ¶ <span>50.</span><span> </span>In particular, a court should consider such facto<span></span>rs as </span>
</div>
<div>(<span>1)</span><span> </span><span>“cohabitation”;</span><span> (2) <span>“reputation in the community as sp<span></span>ouses”; </span></span>
</div>
<div>(3) <span>“maintenance of joint banking and credit accounts”; </span>
</div>
<div>(4) <span>“purchase and joint ownership of property”; (5)</span> <span>“filing of joint<span></span> tax </span>
</div>
<div>returns”; (6)<span> </span>“use of one spouse’s surname by the other or by </div>
<div>children raised by the parties”; (7)<span> </span>“shared financial responsibility,<span> </span>
</div>
<div>such as leases in both partners’ names, joint bills, or other <span></span>payment </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>records”; (8)<span> </span>“joint estate planning, including wills, powers of </div>
<div>attorney, [and] <span>beneficiary and emergency contact designations<span></span>”; </span>
</div>
<div>(9) <span>“symbols of commitment, such as ceremonies, anniversa<span></span>ries, </span>
</div>
<div>cards, [and] gifts<span>”; (10)</span> <span>“the couple’s references to or labels for <span></span>one </span>
</div>
<div>another”; and (1<span>1) </span>“the parties’ sincerely held beliefs regarding the </div>
<div>institution of marriage.” <span>Id.</span><span> at ¶¶ <span>55</span><span>-<span>56</span></span>. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>The trial court applied this test t<span>o </span>determine whether McClure </span>
</div>
<div>and Lopez were common law married<span>. The court first found “n<span></span>o </span>
</div>
<div>evidence in the record reflecting that [McClure] and Lopez ever ha<span></span>d </div>
<div>an express agreement to marry.” <span> It then </span>“turn[ed] to the co<span></span>uple’s </div>
<div>conduct to determine whether” a common law marriage existed.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> <span>In evaluating the couple’s conduct, the court<span> assessed each </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>factor articulated by the supreme court in <span>Hogsett</span> and concluded </div>
<div>that several factors <span>—</span> cohabitation, maintenance of joint banking </div>
<div>and credit accounts, purchase and joint ownership of <span></span>property, </div>
<div>shared financial responsibility, and beneficiary and emergency </div>
<div>contact designations <span>—</span> weighed in favor of a common law marriage </div>
<div>finding. On the other hand, the court concluded that several <span></span>other </div>
<div>factors <span>—</span> reputation in the community as spouses, filing of <span></span>joint tax </div>
<div>returns, <span>use of one spouse’s surname, </span>symbols of commitment, and </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>the couple’s references to or labels for one another<span> </span><span>—</span><span> weighed </span>
</div>
<div>against a common law marriage finding, and that some of t<span></span>hose </div>
<div>factors weighed “heavily” against such a finding<span>. <span>The court also </span></span>
</div>
<div>concluded that there was no evidence concerning the final <span></span>factor <span>—</span> </div>
<div>the parties’ beliefs about the institution of marriage. <span>After </span>
</div>
<div>assessing all of the factors, the court determined that the <span></span>totality of </div>
<div>the circumstances did not indicate a manifestation of a mutu<span></span>al </div>
<div>agreement <span>to</span> be married. </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>On appeal, Lopez points to evidence that he claims supports </span>
</div>
<div>the existence of a common law marriage, particularly evidence t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>he and McClure lived together for several years, had joint bank </div>
<div>accounts, jointly owned property, named each other as emergency </div>
<div>medical contacts, named each other as beneficiaries on insurance </div>
<div>policies, wore wedding rings, exchanged commitment symbols like </div>
<div>gifts and cards, and introduced each other as spouses<span>. <span>Th</span></span>e court </div>
<div>discussed <span>th</span>at evidence in its assessment of the <span>Hogsett</span> factors.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>But<span> the court came to different conclusions about wh<span></span>ether <span>it</span> </span>
</div>
<div>demonstrated the existence of a common law marriage.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>The trial court acknowledged that McClure and Lopez lived </span>
</div>
<div>together for about thirteen and a half years, that they had joint </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>banking and credit accounts and jointly owned property, and that </div>
<div>McClure named Lopez as the beneficiary on two life insurance </div>
<div>policies<span>. <span> The<span>se</span> facts, the court concluded, weigh<span>ed</span> in favor of a </span></span>
</div>
<div>common law marriage. However, the court did not agree that </div>
<div>McClure and Lopez had a reputation in the community <span></span>as spouses, </div>
<div>that they shared symbols of commitment, or that t<span></span>hey referred to </div>
<div>each other as spouses. </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>As to the <span>couple’s reputation in the community</span>, the court </span>
</div>
<div>found that there were credible witnesses on either side that </div>
<div>“testif[ied] to the couple being reputed<span> . . . as married or not </span>
</div>
<div>married.” Indeed, Lopez presented witnesses who s<span>aid they </span>
</div>
<div>regarded the couple as married, wh<span>ile</span> Moore presented other </div>
<div>witnesses who testified to the contrary. The court concluded that,<span></span> </div>
<div>“in the totality of the circumstances,” the evidence <span>regarding the </span>
</div>
<div>couple’s reputation was inconclusive and for that reason <span></span>weighed </div>
<div>against a finding of a common law marriage. </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>As to shared symbols of commitment, the court remarked that </span>
</div>
<div>there was no evidence of a marriage ceremony, a celebration <span></span>of </div>
<div>marriage, or any anniversary celebrations.<span> </span>The court discounted </div>
<div>Lopez’s evidence of gifts, noting that the <span>jewelry box and preprinte<span></span>d </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>card referring to “My Husband” <span>contained no identifying </span>
</div>
<div>information and that, while Lopez apparently gave McClure a locket </div>
<div>and <span>a </span>card referring to her as his wife, there was no evidence <span></span>of any </div>
<div>gifts in which <span>she<span>’</span><span>d</span></span> referred to <span>him</span> <span>as </span>her husband.<span> </span>The court als<span></span>o </div>
<div>acknowledged Lopez’s evidence of a <span>set of matching rings but </span>
</div>
<div>pointed to the absence of any “evidence .<span> . . of a proposal, </span>
</div>
<div>announcement, act, occasion, or event that would indicate that<span></span> </div>
<div>[they] were <span>wedding</span> <span>or </span><span>marriage</span> rings as opposed to simply </div>
<div>matching rings for a couple.<span>”</span><span> </span>And the court observed that photos of </div>
<div>McClure and Lopez showed a <span>“</span><span>happy</span><span>” </span>couple but not necessarily a </div>
<div>“<span>married</span><span>” one<span>.<span> <span>Overall, the court found this factor to weigh heavily </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>against a common law marriage finding; it explained<span>, </span>quoting </div>
<div>Hogsett<span>, ¶ 3, that it <span>“place[d] great weight on the fact that<span></span> <span>there </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>[was] no reliable evidence of symbols of commitment demonst<span></span>rating </div>
<div>a ‘<span>mutual consent<span> <span>or </span></span>agreement <span>of the couple to enter t<span></span>he legal and </span></span>
</div>
<div>social institution of marriage’”<span> despite their more than t<span></span>hirteen </span>
</div>
<div>years together. </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>And as to references to one another as spouses, the court </span>
</div>
<div>found the evidence <span>“conflicting and unclear</span><span>.<span>”</span></span><span> </span>The court noted that </div>
<div>much of the evidence Lopez presented on this issue, aside from his </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPQTMEW5IF&amp;Expires=1728882210&amp;Signature=EmF3KPppl2zED3BOnAlFCb%2F8%2BE8%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEHQaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBCN4VHcO%2FS20gXqQoRnNK%2Fo%2BvuP26DxtAAlQ1lEhdRdAiEA4OdpdpZzQvOotlGIWnQY%2By4URMdHfgMtcu%2FPK4sGe1AquwUIzf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDJTOefVJ%2FPHZRAi8eCqPBXwKk6gxf%2FWRB2QlAoO0r310LRtMK1YBlLsBvg3l8cm6A82YXeHbIO99F1QblZFZZisj3BdRpeJTA80xp7FhLwMQIzRzwt%2Ft0wWRrMXZw2IEMaNVQye%2FFgRme3YRCiqQSBz%2B7jsUTY%2BTq7F6YQ0wIRHxSlwA2Vv0VJXL%2BJpkh%2BpluStVJTXLPOYDUvKe0KjeLbn5HdWQZy3yAaC89%2FGJru9Hs28tM5HLehTm%2BWIsBGO8Kj9eoWHMlmdD2Oa596Gwv6B%2FEbvyZxAZyXVfYefNOO0yotuT3pOo3FlN75i5H3Zl%2B%2FSQrL8Z420Lw5UbSsgKB4ZM%2B5M1KPVDnIhOkSWZsqhlwa3RNnxCN4umJIsUjhZwsJ%2BN6aD1QjYAQdPsg1VXSqllyqmuemRz%2BP9DdhF%2BI0RLJkyniguJlTNW%2FFADxyFER8g6yb9v1KhYr29e%2FGBseLyRojUq4tFygPQes%2B3qLTFuEQy52rtdB%2Bg5P5PeQ6Fkj0Q%2BcPUaBQ993Nbt2ZOXOymDJscVbdfbP9RxDzIwZINBK6cRHDbeuTg1ak26nZ5aruZenLm1MdLtjG%2Fa4hNY5Y%2F0YcnBXUEhm1DJdy7ydlOJJmoVzhTefnQwZDpauE6r5CCc8E%2FkTCk1UIl48n2bgfor%2FbCjX57b2qDDcGyLywPy%2BbQoyxzfcs0cqJtfvoIc9LHebgRpU17ZSXis7OqwuSprtsrkO7XlEgYe4wxxU7HJLG7iVrY0ruDE9jxUiTgvaKe%2B1zWuXqnYKHSf5IDq%2BeOFKTcUhdSdE3loA8sDFdkzasvffSKBXMZmNzh62xiO4tHgKqXt4J%2FiyqtldWSbcH73mnJ2Nv4qdDwgSJKijP%2B0oPg6GKHGW2%2FrBL6SBo0wgrCyuAY6sQFHYqK8KF7yXBmaqM%2F1kYuhQ0seuO5a5EvNDzP52TOlcHYKrNIbW3BRGejrD5pVI26z5DLTUoWPaoa3%2FGeUb7AxYBVhEQbiNPcbtbL1bCTqV3etmfLPXN0VbueyI%2Bva7fQgtZOEv0gzuzcU2n4vc8XcmZoU7MwhKTI4nj8Cb4zSqRsfP%2F%2BLL2Ee%2FFUsJYJqcQATaNt3EcwvWq3k9WREILdsz2g4L1tp%2BkhuLQUowCbQw9I%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>own testimony, was <span>“inadmissible pursuant to the Dead Man’s </span>
</div>
<div>Statute and as hearsay.”<span> <span> </span>(Lopez </span>doesn’t challenge th<span>ose evidentiary </span>
</div>
<div>rulings <span>on</span> appeal<span>.) </span>And the court found the admissible evidence </div>
<div>was conflicting: a few witnesses said they heard McClure, on some </div>
<div>occasions, refer to Lopez as her <span>“husband<span>,</span><span>”</span></span> and McClure apparently </div>
<div>referred to Lopez as <span>a “</span><span>spouse<span>”</span></span> or <span>“<span>husband</span><span>”</span></span> on some life insurance </div>
<div>applications, but another witness said she heard McClure refe<span></span>r to </div>
<div>Lopez as her “old man,” not <span>her </span><span>“husband<span>,</span></span><span>” </span><span>and the court foun<span></span>d it </span>
</div>
<div>meaningful that McClure had “repeatedly represented to t<span></span>he federal </div>
<div>government”<span> <span>in</span> <span>her tax returns “that she was not married, <span></span>going so </span></span>
</div>
<div>far as to state that her spouse was <span>‘deceased.’”</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>Because the </span>
</div>
<div>evidence on this factor was mixed, the court determined that<span></span> it </div>
<div>weighed against a finding of a common law marriage. </div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>Because the trial court applied the correct legal standard and </span>
</div>
<div>because its findings are reasonable and well support<span></span>ed by the </div>
<div>evidence, we discern no clear error or abuse of discretion <span></span>in its </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> The trial court separately addressed the factor concerning joint t<span></span>ax </div>
<div>filings. <span>It</span> found that the fact that McClure and Lopez both filed </div>
<div>their taxes as head of household, which requires the filer to be </div>
<div>unmarried, on its own “weigh<span>[ed] </span>heavily against” a finding of <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>common law marriage. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pfb" data-dest-detail='[11,"XYZ",69,154,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:497.336667px;bottom:458.032222px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>11 </div>
<div>determination that McClure and Lopez were not common law </div>
<div>married. <span>See Blakeland Drive Invs.</span><span>,</span><span> </span>¶ <span>28<span>; </span></span><span>Marriage of Ba<span></span>dawiyeh<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span>. </span>Indeed, w<span>here, as here, the evidence is conflicting, we “</span>may not </div>
<div>substitute [our] conclusions for those of the trial court me<span></span>rely </div>
<div>because there may be credible evidence supporting a different </div>
<div>result.”<span> <span>Blakeland Drive Invs.</span><span>,</span><span> </span>¶ <span>28</span> (quoting <span>Lawry v. Pa<span></span>lm<span>, 192 </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>P.3d 550, 558 (Colo. App. 2008)). </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Attorney-Client Privilege </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Lopez also contends that the trial court erred by allowing the </span>
</div>
<div>discovery and the admission of evidence concerning the draft </div>
<div>Cohabitation Agreement, as such evidence was protected by t<span></span>he </div>
<div>attorney-client privilege. We conclude that any error was harmless. </div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>We review rulings on the discoverability and admissibility of </span>
</div>
<div>evidence <span>for</span> <span>an</span> abuse of discretion. <span>Affinity Colo., LLC v. Kissinger </span>
</div>
<div>&amp; Fellman, P.C.<span>, 2019 COA 147, ¶ 23; </span>Hodge v. Matrix Grp., I<span></span>nc.<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>2022 COA 4, ¶ <span>12</span><span>. </span>This same standard also applies to decisions </div>
<div>regarding the attorney-client privilege. <span>Affinity Colo.</span><span>, ¶</span> <span>23.</span> </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>However, an error is not grounds for reversal if it is harmless. <span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>In re Estate of Gonzalez<span>, 2024 COA 63, ¶ 40. We will reverse a </span>
</div>
<div>judgment only if <span>an</span> error affected the <span>parties’ </span>substantial rights. <span></span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfd" data-page-no="d">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>12 </div>
<div>Id.<span>; </span><span>see also<span> <span>C.R.C.P. 61. “An error affects a substa<span></span>ntial right only if </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>‘it can be said with fair assurance that the error substant<span></span>ially </div>
<div>influenced the outcome of the case or impaired the basi<span></span>c fairness of </div>
<div>the trial <span>itself.’” <span>Gonzalez</span></span><span>, ¶</span> <span>40</span><span> </span>(quoting <span>Bly v. Story</span>, 241 P.3d 529, </div>
<div>535 (Colo. 2010)). </div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>The attorney-client privilege and Colorado Rule of Professional </span>
</div>
<div>Conduct 1.6 both ensure client-lawyer confidentiality. <span>In re Estat<span></span>e </span>
</div>
<div>of Rabin<span>, 2020 CO 77, ¶ 29. The protections of both provisions </span>
</div>
<div>survive the death of the client. <span>Id.</span><span>; </span><span>see also</span> Colo. RPC 1.9(c)(2) <span>(“A </span>
</div>
<div>lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matt<span></span>er . . . shall </div>
<div>not thereafter . . . reveal information relating to the represent<span></span>ation </div>
<div>except as these Rules would permit or require . . . .<span>”).</span> </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>However, there are several exceptions to the application of </span>
</div>
<div>these provisions<span>. </span><span>Wesp v. Everson</span>, 33 P.3d 191, 200 (Colo. 2001)<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>One of those <span>is the testamentary exception, which “permits an </span>
</div>
<div>attorney who writes a will to testify, after the testator’s <span></span>death, about </div>
<div>attorney-client communications related to the execution and </div>
<div>validity of the will.” <span>Id. <span>at 201. Courts have applied this exception </span></span>
</div>
<div>to allow attorneys to reveal otherwise privileged information that is </div>
<div>necessary for administering the testator’s estate, <span>see Ra<span></span>bin<span>, ¶<span> 42, <span>or </span></span></span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfe" data-page-no="e">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>13 </div>
<div>that affects the validity of <span>the testator’s</span> will, <span>see <span>Denver Nat<span>’l</span> Bank </span></span>
</div>
<div>v. McLagan<span>, 298 P.2d 386, 388 (Colo. 1956).<span> </span>In doing so, the courts </span>
</div>
<div>have reasoned that such disclosures serve “the exception’s p<span></span>urpose </div>
<div>of furthering the testator’s intent.” <span>Wesp</span><span>, 33 P.3d at 201. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>The trial court applied this exception, concluding that the </span>
</div>
<div>draft Cohabitation Agreement functioned as a “quasi<span>-testamentary </span>
</div>
<div>instrument” insofar as it purported to delineate the disposit<span></span>ion of </div>
<div>McClure’s and Lopez’s joint and <span>separate property.<span> </span>The court also </span>
</div>
<div>reasoned that applying the exception “would likely further </div>
<div>[McClure’s] testamentary intent.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> </span><span>But to date, the published decisions addressing the </span>
</div>
<div>testamentary exception <span>ha</span>ve applied it only in the context of </div>
<div>testamentary instruments<span>, </span>like wills<span>. </span> <span>S<span>ee</span><span>, e.g.</span></span><span>,</span><span> In re Estate of </span>
</div>
<div>Ashworth<span>, 2024 CO 39, ¶¶ <span>14</span><span>-<span>15</span></span><span>; </span></span>Wesp<span>, 33 P.3d at 200-<span>01<span>; </span></span><span>Denver </span></span>
</div>
<div>Nat<span>’l</span><span> Bank<span>, 298 P.2d <span>at</span> 388<span>; </span></span>In re Shapter<span>’</span>s Estate<span>, 85 P. 688, 6<span></span>91 </span></span>
</div>
<div>(Colo. 1905)<span>, </span><span>superseded by statute</span>, Ch. 251, sec. 1, 1907 Colo. </div>
<div>Sess. Laws 629. Thus, <span>it’s not clear </span>that the exception would apply </div>
<div>to instruments like the draft Cohabitation Agreement <span>that<span></span> don’t </span>
</div>
<div>establish the transfer of property rights upon death and thus <span></span>aren’t </div>
<div>testamentary in nature <span>—</span> or at most are, as the trial court </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>14 </div>
<div>described it, “quasi<span>-</span>testamentary” in nature<span>. </span><span>See generally<span> § <span>15<span>-<span>10</span></span></span>-</span></span>
</div>
<div>201(59), C.R.S. 2024 (defining a “will” to include certain </div>
<div>“testamentary instrument[s]”<span>); <span>Taylor v. Wilder</span>, 165 P. 766, 767-68 </span>
</div>
<div>(Colo. 1917) (explaining the difference between contracts that </div>
<div>transfer property <span>rights during a party’s lifetime and testamentary </span>
</div>
<div>instruments that transfer such <span>rights upon the party’s death).</span> </div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>But regardless of whether the court erred by allowing the </span>
</div>
<div>discovery and admission of evidence relating to the agre<span></span>ement, w<span>e </span>
</div>
<div>conclude that any such error was harmless because the court mad<span></span>e </div>
<div>clear that it would<span>’ve reached</span> the same conclusion on the common </div>
<div>law marriage issue even without the evidence. </div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>In its assessment of the common law marriage factors, the </span>
</div>
<div>court cited the challenged evidence only once. And in that <span></span>one </div>
<div>instance, the court stated that <span>“[e]ven if [it] did not consider </span>
</div>
<div>[<span>McClure’s</span><span> </span><span>attorney’s</span><span>] testimony and [the draft Cohabitation </span>
</div>
<div>Agreement], the record evidence of [<span>McClure’s and Lopez’s] </span>
</div>
<div>references/labels for one another fails to support a finding<span></span> that the </div>
<div>couple called <span>each other</span> <span>husband and wife.”<span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 27<span> </span><span>It is clear, therefore, that any error in the <span>court’s rulings </span><span>on</span> </span>
</div>
<div>the discoverability and admissibility of the challenged evidenc<span></span>e </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf10" data-page-no="10">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>15 </div>
<div>didn’t substantially influence the outcome of the case or impair t<span></span>he </div>
<div>basic fairness of the proceeding<span>. </span><span>See Gonzalez</span><span>, ¶</span> <span>40</span><span>; </span><span>see also </span>
</div>
<div>People v. Thompson<span>, 950 P.2d 608, 613 (Colo. App. 199<span></span>7) </span>
</div>
<div>(concluding that any error in admitting privileged evidence was </div>
<div>harmless under the circumstances of the case).<span> </span>
</div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Appointment of the Personal Representative </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 28<span> </span><span>Finally, Lopez contends that the trial court erred in appointing </span>
</div>
<div>Moore as personal r<span>epresentative of McClure’s estate because she </span>
</div>
<div>didn<span>’</span><span>t have priority for the appointment.<span> </span>We decline to consider </span>
</div>
<div>this issue, as Lopez didn<span>’</span>t preserve it for appeal. </div>
<div>¶ 29<span> <span>In civil cases, we generally don’t address issues that weren’t </span></span>
</div>
<div>preserved for appeal. <span>Madalena v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.</span>, 2023 COA </div>
<div>32, ¶ 50. <span>We don’t require “talismanic language” to prese<span></span>rve an </span>
</div>
<div>issue for appeal<span>. </span><span>Id.</span> (quoting <span>In re Estate of Owens</span>, 2017 COA 53, </div>
<div>¶ <span>21). Instead, “[i]f a party ‘presented to the trial court t<span></span>he sum and </span>
</div>
<div>substance of the argument it . . . makes on appeal, we conside<span></span>r that </div>
<div>argument properly preserved.<span>’” <span>Id.</span></span> (quoting <span>Berra v. Springer &amp; </span>
</div>
<div>Steinberg, P.C.<span>, 251 P.3d 567, 570 (Colo. App. 2010)). </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 30<span> </span><span>Lopez argues that the trial court erred in selecting Moore, who </span>
</div>
<div>serves as guardian for McClure’s adult child,<span> as the personal </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>16 </div>
<div>representative<span>. He suggests that the court instead should’ve </span>
</div>
<div>appointed the <span>child’s </span>conservator. </div>
<div>¶ 31<span> </span><span>However, Lopez didn<span>’</span>t raise this argument at the trial level. </span>
</div>
<div>While Lopez, in his response to <span>Moore’s petition</span>, asked to be </div>
<div>appointed as the personal representative, he didn<span>’</span>t argue that<span></span> </div>
<div>Moore should <span>not</span> be appointed because she didn<span>’</span>t have priority or </div>
<div>because someone else (other than him) should be appointe<span></span>d.<span> </span>Nor </div>
<div>did he make any such arguments after the court rejected his </div>
<div>common law marriage claim and indicated that, in his absence, </div>
<div>Moore had priority for appointment as the personal rep<span></span>resentative.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Thus, the issue is not preserved.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>V.<span> <span>Attorney Fees </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 32<span> </span><span>Lastly, we reject Moore<span>’s</span> contention <span>that Lopez’s appeal is </span></span>
</div>
<div>frivolous and that she is therefore entitled to attorney fees under </div>
<div>C.A.R. 38(b) and section 13-<span>17</span>-102, C.R.S. 2024. </div>
<div>¶ 33<span> <span>“An appeal may be either frivolous as filed or frivolous as </span></span>
</div>
<div>argued.” <span>Calvert v. Mayberry<span>, 2019 CO 23, ¶ 45. An appeal is </span></span>
</div>
<div>frivolous as filed if the judgment below was plainly correct and the </div>
<div>legal authority is clearly contrary to the appellant’s position<span>, such </span>
</div>
<div>that <span>“</span>there are no legitimately appealable issues.<span>”</span><span> </span><span>Id.</span><span> </span>And an </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf12" data-page-no="12">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>17 </div>
<div>appeal is frivolous as argued if, even if there may be legitimately </div>
<div>appealable issues, the appellant doesn<span>’t present “a coherent </span>
</div>
<div>assertion of error, supported by legal authority,<span>”</span> to support them.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Id. <span>(quoting </span>Castillo v. Koppes-Conway<span>, 148 P.3d 289, <span></span>292 (Colo. </span>
</div>
<div>App. 2006)). </div>
<div>¶ 34<span> </span><span>We conclude that, a<span>lthough Lopez’s arguments are ultimately </span></span>
</div>
<div>unsuccessful, his appeal is not frivolous. First, the appeal is not </div>
<div>frivolous as filed, as the issues were legitimately appealable, </div>
<div>particularly as to <span>the trial court’s common law marriage and </span>
</div>
<div>attorney-client privilege determinations<span>. </span>And second, the appeal i<span>s </span>
</div>
<div>not frivolous as argued, as Lopez presented coherent arguments </div>
<div>supported by legal authority and citations to the record. </div>
<div>¶ 35<span> </span><span>Accordingly, an award of attorney fees is not warranted. </span>
</div>
<div>VI.<span> </span><span>Disposition </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 36<span> </span><span>The orders are affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE DUNN and JUDGE NAVARRO concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>