24CA0334 Gunderson v Gunderson 03-27-2025
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 24CA0334 Mesa County District Court No. 22CV30428 Honorable Dinsmore Tuttle, Judge
Kimberly Gunderson,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jerry Gunderson,
Defendant-Appellee.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division VII Opinion by JUDGE MOULTRIE Lipinsky and Johnson, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced March 27, 2025
Wegener Lane & Evans, P.C., Benjamin M. Wegener, Dalen B. Porter, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Starritt Legal, LLC, Sam D. Starritt, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendant- Appellee ¶1 Plaintiff, Kimberly Gunderson (Kimberly), appeals the district
court’s order declining to take judicial notice of certain rulings in
earlier civil litigation between her and defendant, Jerry Gunderson
(Jerry) (jointly, the parties or the Gundersons).1 Kimberly also
appeals the judgment entered on the jury’s award of zero damages
to her. We affirm.
I. Background
¶2 The Gundersons have been married for over twenty-five years
but have been embroiled in divorce proceedings since 2015. They
have also been embroiled in civil litigation spanning multiple states
since at least 2017. The prior proceedings relevant to this appeal
include (1) a civil case in Colorado that Jerry initiated against
Kimberly and others (the prior Colorado case); and (2) a civil case in
Nevada that Jerry initiated against Kimberly, The Kimberly
Gunderson Trust (Kimberly’s trust), and others (the Nevada case).
Based on these prior proceedings, Kimberly filed a lawsuit against
Jerry in which she alleged abuse of process and malicious
prosecution (the current Colorado case). In her complaint filed in
1 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by
their first names. No disrespect is intended.
1 the current Colorado case, she requested a jury trial and an award
of economic and noneconomic damages.
¶3 Relevant to this appeal are the following facts about the
parties’ practice of purchasing real estate with funds from
Kimberly’s trust and the parties’ litigation history after Kimberly
filed for dissolution of marriage.
A. Kimberly’s Trust
¶4 In 2003, Kimberly’s father set up an irrevocable trust under
Nevada law. In 2005, the trustees of that trust formed a spendthrift
trust for Kimberly’s benefit — Kimberly’s trust. During their
marriage, the Gundersons purchased multiple homes using funds
borrowed from Kimberly’s trust. The trustees of Kimberly’s trust
conditioned the loans on Kimberly’s and Jerry’s execution of loan
documents, such as promissory notes, that required them to repay
the funds with interest and transfer title to the properties to
Kimberly’s trust. A Nevada limited liability company that
Kimberly’s trust owned (the LLC) generally held the titles to the
Gundersons’ various residential properties. The trustees didn’t
require the Gundersons to make payments on the principal or
interest on the loans when their marriage was intact; instead, the
2 parties were simply required to maintain the properties in good
condition.
¶5 Between 2005 and 2015, the parties followed this practice of
using funds borrowed from Kimberly’s trust to purchase various
properties in Nevada, Colorado, and Montana. In 2015, Kimberly
filed for dissolution of marriage in Montana, where the parties then
resided. In 2017, the LLC — which held notes secured by the
parcel of Colorado real property on which the Gundersons lived —
called the notes due. The notes expressly provided that the LLC
could demand full payment from Kimberly and Jerry individually or
jointly, and the LLC demanded that Jerry individually pay the notes
in full by April 2017. Thereafter, the parties began their yearslong
civil litigation battle.
B. The Prior Colorado Case
¶6 Jerry didn’t pay the notes as the LLC demanded. Rather, in
May 2017, he initiated the prior Colorado case against Kimberly,
Kimberly’s father, the LLC, and others seeking declaratory relief
related to the notes. Jerry also asserted claims of affirmative fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment or
nondisclosure against Kimberly, Kimberly’s father, and the LLC. He
3 further pleaded contribution, promissory estoppel, and unjust
enrichment claims against Kimberly individually.
¶7 In December 2021, the court entered an order granting
Kimberly’s motion to dismiss four of Jerry’s seven claims against
her (the prior Colorado order). A month later, the court entered
judgment in favor of the LLC and concluded that the LLC was
entitled to collect the entire amount due under the notes from
either Kimberly or Jerry (the prior Colorado judgment). The court
also found in favor of Jerry on his contribution claim against
Kimberly and concluded that, after Jerry had satisfied his
obligations under the notes, he could seek contribution from
Kimberly.
C. The Nevada Case
¶8 Jerry filed the Nevada case in April 2018, while the prior
Colorado case was pending. In the Nevada case, he asserted similar
claims to those he brought in the prior Colorado case but included
as defendants Kimberly’s father’s trust, Kimberly’s trust, and their
respective trustees (collectively, the trust defendants). Jerry also
asserted that he had a marital property interest in Kimberly’s trust.
4 ¶9 In December 2018, the Nevada court entered an order granting
the trust defendants’ motion to dismiss Jerry’s complaint with
prejudice and concluding that Jerry had no interest in Kimberly’s
trust (the Nevada order).
¶ 10 Although the trust defendants were dismissed under the
Nevada order, the claims against Kimberly individually and the LLC
remained pending in the Nevada case. In March 2019, the Nevada
court entered a judgment in favor of the LLC and denied Jerry’s
request for judgment.
¶ 11 In September 2020, Kimberly, Kimberly’s trust, the LLC, and
Jerry stipulated to the dismissal, with prejudice, of Jerry’s
remaining claims against the various defendants (the stipulation).
The Nevada case ended once the Nevada court approved the
stipulation.2
D. The Current Colorado Case
¶ 12 In November 2022, Kimberly filed the current Colorado case,
in which she asserted that Jerry abused the legal process and
2 Jerry appealed the Nevada order dismissing his complaint against
the trust defendants to the Nevada Supreme Court; the court affirmed the Nevada order in December 2021.
5 maliciously prosecuted her based on the litigation in the prior
Colorado case and the Nevada case. The court scheduled the
current Colorado case for a four-day jury trial and ordered the
parties to file trial briefs at least fourteen days before trial.
¶ 13 Two months before trial, Kimberly filed her “Plaintiff’s
Unopposed Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts
Pursuant to C.R.E. 201” (the motion) and requested that the court
take judicial notice of the prior Colorado order, the prior Colorado
judgment, and the Nevada order (collectively, the prior rulings). The
court granted the motion.
¶ 14 In his trial brief, filed two weeks before trial, Jerry objected to
Kimberly’s request to admit the prior rulings into evidence, arguing
that their admission was improper under CRE 201 because they
included adverse rulings and findings about Jerry’s credibility.
Alternatively, he argued that, if the court admitted the prior rulings
into evidence, it should redact “factual findings [the] jury must
reach, credibility findings[,] and the judge[s’] identities.” He further
argued that the prior rulings should not be referenced at trial until
the court determined whether and to what extent the prior rulings
were admissible.
6 ¶ 15 A week before the trial, the parties participated in a pretrial
readiness conference during which the court addressed the issue of
judicial notice of the prior rulings. Coincidentally, the judge who
had presided over the prior Colorado case also presided over the
current Colorado case, which was why Jerry requested that the
judge’s identity be redacted from any documents from the prior
Colorado case provided to the jury.
¶ 16 During the pretrial readiness conference, the judge agreed that
her name should be redacted from any of the prior Colorado case
documents provided to the jury. Initially, the judge likewise agreed
that findings about Jerry’s credibility should also be redacted.
Kimberly’s counsel agreed to the redaction of the judge’s name but
objected to redacting the court’s prior credibility findings. Instead,
her counsel suggested that the court provide the jury with a limiting
instruction clarifying the jury’s duty to determine credibility in the
current Colorado case, regardless of any prior credibility findings.
¶ 17 At the conclusion of the pretrial conference, the court
permitted the parties to file motions and responses detailing their
arguments for or against the court taking judicial notice of the prior
rulings. In his motion, Jerry reasserted his argument in his trial
7 brief that “[a] court may take judicial notice of its own record and
adopt factual findings from a previous case as long as the previous
case involved the same parties and issues,” but the court “may
not . . . take judicial notice of findings of fact on the very issue the
parties are litigating.” In her response, Kimberly asserted that “the
jury may consider the [prior rulings] and the determinations
contained therein with regard to the fact that civil lawsuits were
brought against [Kimberly] by [Jerry], that the civil lawsuit ended in
favor of [Kimberly], and as evidence that the lawsuit was brought
without probable cause.”
¶ 18 The court issued an order a few days before trial ruling that it
would take judicial notice of the prior rulings as evidence of “the
fact that civil lawsuits were brought against [Kimberly] by [Jerry]”
and that “at least one of those lawsuits . . . ended in favor of
[Kimberly],” but it declined Kimberly’s request that it judicially
notice the prior rulings as evidence that the prior Colorado case was
brought without probable cause.
¶ 19 The court specifically denied Kimberly’s request that it take
judicial notice of the courts’ credibility determinations underlying
the prior rulings, noting that, while it may be inclined to judicially
8 notice certain information contained in related proceedings’ records,
“it [was] unwilling, without more, to commit to invading the
province of the jury by taking judicial notice of underlying
credibility determinations related to [the current Colorado case] that
were raised in the prior proceedings.”
¶ 20 The court also declined Kimberly’s request that it take judicial
notice of “the contents of other files” because it didn’t know exactly
which records counsel might seek judicial notice of; thus, the court
deemed the matter unripe for ruling. However, the court provided
Kimberly with the opportunity to raise this issue again at the
pretrial hearing set the day before trial, so long as Kimberly
identified the records she would be requesting that the court
judicially notice and her purpose for offering those records into
evidence.
¶ 21 At the pretrial hearing, Kimberly’s counsel reminded the court
that the prior rulings Kimberly was requesting be judicially noticed
were attached to the motion, filed in September 2023. Jerry’s
counsel argued that the only fact from the prior proceedings of
which the court could take judicial notice was that he didn’t prevail
on certain claims. He again objected to the court taking judicial
9 notice of the credibility findings or the substantive content of any
prior rulings. Kimberly’s counsel argued that the substance of the
prior rulings went “to the basis of [her] claims” — abuse of process
and malicious prosecution — and would minimize the relitigation of
those issues. However, Kimberly’s counsel ultimately agreed to
redact the court’s credibility findings from the prior rulings.
¶ 22 At the conclusion of the pretrial hearing, the court ordered
counsel for both parties to submit their proposed redactions to the
prior rulings. The following day, before trial began, the court
adopted the entirety of Jerry’s proposed redactions to the Nevada
order, which redacted large portions of the court’s conclusions of
law. After the first day of trial, the court ruled on the parties’
proposed redactions of the filings in the prior Colorado case. The
court ordered the redaction of much of the court’s findings and the
judge’s identity from both the prior Colorado order and the prior
Colorado judgment.
¶ 23 During closing argument, Kimberly’s counsel requested that
the jury award Kimberly damages against Jerry, including
$119,870.95 in economic damages for attorney fees and costs she
incurred in her defense against Jerry’s claims in the Nevada case
10 and the prior Colorado case, and noneconomic damages for “stress,
anxiety, [and] the issues that she’s [had] to deal with over all these
years because of what [Jerry] [has] been doing with regard to these
lawsuits.”
¶ 24 The jury came back with a split verdict: It concluded that
Jerry didn’t engage in malicious prosecution in either of the prior
proceedings and that he did not abuse process in the prior Colorado
case, but it concluded that Jerry abused process in the Nevada
case. The jury didn’t award Kimberly any damages for Jerry’s
abuse of process in the Nevada case, however.
¶ 25 After the court entered judgment, Kimberly filed this appeal, in
which she asserted that the court abused its discretion by redacting
the prior rulings rather than taking judicial notice of them in their
entirety. She also appeals the jury’s verdict declining to award her
damages despite its finding in her favor on her claim of abuse of
process in the Nevada case.
¶ 26 We first discuss the legal principles underlying judicial
notice — CRE 201 — and our standard for reviewing a court’s
ruling on a party’s request for judicial notice. We then consider the
court’s application of CRE 201 in this case and conclude that the
11 court didn’t abuse its discretion when it redacted certain portions of
the prior rulings. Next, we discuss the legal principles underlying a
jury’s determination of damages and the applicable standard of
review. We conclude that the jury’s verdict awarding no damages to
Kimberly was not inconsistent or irreconcilable with the evidence
presented at trial. Accordingly, we affirm.
II. The Court Did Not Err by Declining to Take Judicial Notice of the Unredacted Prior Rulings
A. Applicable Legal Principles
¶ 27 CRE 201 governs a court’s ability to take judicial notice of an
adjudicative fact, which means the fact is either “(1) generally
known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or
(2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Larsen v.
Archdiocese of Denver, 631 P.2d 1163, 1164 (Colo. App. 1981)
(quoting CRE 201(b)).
¶ 28 Under Rule 201, a court may “adopt factual findings from a
previous case as long as the previous case involved the same parties
and the same issue.” Mun. Subdistrict, N. Colo. Water Conservancy
Dist. v. OXY USA, Inc., 990 P.2d 701, 711 (Colo. 1999). It is
12 improper, however, for a court to take judicial notice of the “very
issue the parties are litigating.” Id. Rule 201 has “traditionally
been used cautiously in keeping with its purpose to bypass the
usual fact finding process only when the facts are of such common
knowledge that they cannot reasonably be disputed.” Prestige
Homes, Inc. v. Legouffe, 658 P.2d 850, 853 (Colo. 1983).
¶ 29 Facts that have been considered common knowledge include,
but aren’t limited to, unquestioned laws of mathematics, calendar
days and dates, and matters of public record. See id.; see also
Winterberg v. Thomas, 246 P.2d 1058, 1061 (Colo. 1952); Sierra
Mining Co. v. Lucero, 194 P.2d 302, 303 (Colo. 1948); In re
Interrogatory Propounded by Governor Roy Romer on House Bill
91S-1005, 814 P.2d 875, 880 (Colo. 1991). It’s commonplace for a
court to take judicial notice of its own court records or another
court’s judgments or opinions, but a court commits error if it takes
judicial notice of court records for the truth of the matters asserted
in other litigation. Doyle v. People, 2015 CO 10, ¶ 11; see Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d
Cir. 1992).
13 B. Standard of Review
¶ 30 We review a court’s evidentiary rulings, such as a ruling on
taking judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201, for an abuse of
discretion. Quintana v. City of Westminster, 56 P.3d 1193, 1198-99
(Colo. App. 2002). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling
is “manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair” or when it
misapplies the law. Rains v. Barber, 2018 CO 61, ¶ 8 (citation
omitted).
C. Analysis
¶ 31 Kimberly asserts that the court erred by (1) reversing its
pretrial order granting her request to admit unredacted copies of
the prior rulings into evidence; (2) allowing Jerry to object to the
admissibility of the prior rulings; and (3) accepting Jerry’s proposed
redactions to the prior Colorado order and judgment. We discern
no error for three reasons.
¶ 32 First, we note that, even though the court initially granted the
motion, the court wasn’t required to follow that prior ruling because
it wasn’t a final ruling in the case. See Giampapa v. Am. Fam. Mut.
Ins. Co., 64 P.3d 230, 243 (Colo. 2003) (“When a court issues final
rulings in a case, the ‘law of the case’ doctrine generally requires
14 the court to follow its prior relevant rulings.”). A ruling is “final”
when it “end[s] the particular action in which it is entered and
leave[s] nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order
to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the
proceeding.” Luster v. Brinkman, 250 P.3d 664, 666 (Colo. App.
2010).
¶ 33 Furthermore, a court has discretion to “reconsider and reverse
a prior ruling if it determines that . . . ‘it needs to correct its
previous ruling because of a legal or factual error.’” People v.
Warren, 55 P.3d 809, 813 (Colo. App. 2002) (citation omitted).
While the court previously granted the motion, upon briefing and
the parties’ oral argument, the court concluded that it would be
error to allow the prior rulings into evidence without redaction
because they contained findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
credibility findings that would invade the province of the jury.
Thus, the court acted within its discretion to reverse its prior ruling
to correct a legal error.
¶ 34 Second, C.R.C.P. 121, section 1-15(4), provides that “[t]he
court has discretion to order briefing or set a hearing on [a]
motion,” which is what the court did here. Because Jerry opposed
15 the court taking judicial notice of credibility findings and other
substantive content in the prior rulings, it was wholly within the
court’s discretion to order briefing and a hearing on the matter
before it issued a ruling. See C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-15(4); BFN-Greeley,
LLC v. Adair Grp., Inc., 141 P.3d 937, 942 (Colo. App. 2006) (If an
evidentiary hearing isn’t required, “it is within the district court’s
discretion to conduct an evidentiary hearing or rule on the
submitted motions.”).
¶ 35 Moreover, Kimberly asserts that she was “unfairly prejudiced”
because the court’s redaction order “occurred in the middle of
[Kimberly] putting her case on at trial.” But, as the record
demonstrates, this argument ignores the fact that Kimberly had
ample opportunity before trial to present written and oral argument
on the judicial notice issues, and the court entered its order on the
redactions at the conclusion of the first day of trial, before Kimberly
put on any evidence. See Blood v. Qwest Servs. Corp., 224 P.3d
301, 318 (Colo. App. 2009) (“[W]here the party against whom the
motion is directed had ample opportunity to present written
argument, the due process requirements of notice and a reasonable
opportunity to be heard have been satisfied.”), aff’d, 252 P.3d 1071
16 (Colo. 2011). Thus, we reject Kimberly’s assertion that the court
erred by allowing Jerry to object and file a motion in opposition to
her request for judicial notice.
¶ 36 Third, we reject Kimberly’s argument that the court erred by
admitting redacted versions of the prior rulings because Kimberly
sought to admit them for purposes contrary to those underlying
Rule 201. As previously noted, Kimberly asserted claims of abuse
of process and malicious prosecution against Jerry. “The essential
element of an abuse of process claim is the use of a legal proceeding
in an improper manner; therefore, an improper use of the process
must be established.” Sterenbuch v. Goss, 266 P.3d 428, 439 (Colo.
App. 2011). To prove malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must satisfy
five elements, including that the defendant lacked probable cause to
bring the action against them. Hewitt v. Rice, 154 P.3d 408, 411
(Colo. 2007).
¶ 37 Kimberly argued that “the jury [could] consider the [prior
rulings] and the determinations contained therein with regard to
the fact that civil lawsuits were brought against [Kimberly] by
[Jerry], that the civil lawsuit ended in favor of [Kimberly], and as
evidence that the lawsuit was brought without probable cause.”
17 Furthermore, Kimberly’s counsel argued that, to prove abuse of
process and malicious prosecution, Kimberly “[had] to show that
there [were] improper reasons or lack of probable cause for the
other cases to have . . . been filed” and that “those issues were
determined, not only in the Nevada case . . . [b]ut also [in the prior
Colorado case].”
¶ 38 Thus, Kimberly admitted that she was asking the court to take
judicial notice of the prior rulings to establish certain elements of
her claims against Jerry, which is not the purpose of judicial notice.
See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 969 F.2d at 1388 (“A court may take
judicial notice of a document filed in another court ‘not for the truth
of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to
establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.’”) (citation
omitted). And the court recognized that it would invade the
province of the jury’s duty as the fact finder if it took judicial notice
of the substance of the prior rulings.
¶ 39 Indeed, admission of the prior rulings without redactions
would have invaded the province of the jury in two ways. First, the
court properly declined to take judicial notice that “the [prior
Colorado case] was brought without probable cause” because such
18 a finding would establish an essential element of malicious
prosecution — probable cause — which was a determination
reserved for the jury. See Larsen, 631 P.2d at 1164 (affirming the
court’s ruling in a negligence case that declined to take judicial
notice that “a slippery surface presents more than an ordinary risk
of harm” because “[w]hether certain conditions . . . present more
than an ordinary risk of harm depends upon the circumstances of
each case, and thus, is not an adjudicative fact” but rather a fact
for the jury to decide); see also Prestige Homes, Inc., 658 P.2d at
853-54 (Judicial notice should be used “to bypass the usual fact
finding process only when the facts are of such common knowledge
that they cannot reasonably be disputed,” and therefore, a court’s
use of judicial notice to substitute its own factual findings “for those
of the [jury] . . . expand[s] the judicial notice rule far beyond its
intended scope.”).
¶ 40 Second, it is for the jury, as the fact finder, to weigh the
evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, and determine the
credibility of the witnesses. See Karg v. Mitchek, 983 P.2d 21, 25
(Colo. App. 1998) (“It is the sole province of the jury to resolve
disputed issues of fact and to determine the credibility of witnesses,
19 the weight to be accorded testimony, and the inferences to be drawn
from evidence.”); see also Vigil v. Pine, 490 P.2d 934, 936 (Colo.
1971). Without redactions, the jury may make its credibility
determinations based on the prior rulings instead of focusing on the
evidence and witness testimony presented during trial.
¶ 41 Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its
discretion by redacting substantive portions of the prior rulings.
III. The Jury’s Verdict Awarding No Damages Was Neither Inconsistent Nor Irreconcilable
¶ 42 A general verdict requires the jury to announce the “ultimate
legal result of each claim” and “permits the jury to decide who
wins,” whereas a special verdict “presents the jury with specific
questions of fact” and then “the court applies the law to the facts
found by the jury and enters judgment accordingly.” Morales v.
Golston, 141 P.3d 901, 906 (Colo. App. 2005) (citation omitted).
¶ 43 A jury verdict that awards zero damages, even when evidence
of damages was presented, may be upheld if there was ample
evidence to support the award. Gonzales v. Windlan, 2014 COA
176, ¶¶ 39-40; see Lee’s Mobile Wash v. Campbell, 853 P.2d 1140,
20 1143 (Colo. 1993) (When “evidence is conflicting, a reviewing court
should not disregard the jury’s verdict, which has support in the
evidence, in favor of its own view of the evidence” but should
“reconcile the verdict with the evidence if at all possible” and affirm
it “[i]f there is any basis for [it].”).
B. Preservation and Standard of Review
¶ 44 Whether a party has preserved their objection to a jury’s
verdict for inconsistency depends on whether the verdict was a
special verdict or a general verdict with answers to special
interrogatories. Morales, 141 P.3d at 905; see C.R.C.P. 49(a)-(b).
“Rule 49(a) does not require a party to object to the inconsistencies
in a jury’s answers to a special verdict before the jury is discharged
in order to preserve its right to challenge the inconsistencies . . . on
appeal.” Morales, 141 P.3d at 905.
¶ 45 On appeal, we must “examine the instructions, the verdict
forms, and the evidence . . . to determine from the record whether
there was competent evidence from which the jury logically could
have reached its verdict.” Id. at 906. And in considering a party’s
challenge to the amount of damages the jury awarded, we “will not
disturb an award of damages unless it is completely unsupported
21 by the record.” Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 265 P.3d 456, 462
(Colo. 2011). The standard for reversing a jury verdict on damages
is “only upon a showing that the jury’s action was arbitrary and
capricious or that the jury was swayed by passion or prejudice.”
Gonzales, ¶ 38 (quoting Peterson v. Tadolini, 97 P.3d 359, 361
(Colo. App. 2004)).
¶ 46 As a preliminary matter, Jerry asserts that Kimberly’s
objection to the jury’s verdict is unpreserved because the verdict
was a general verdict, and she didn’t object or allege any
inconsistency before the jury was discharged. Conversely, Kimberly
asserts that the verdict was a special verdict; thus, she wasn’t
required to object to any inconsistencies to preserve the issue for
our review.
¶ 47 We conclude the verdict was a special verdict because the
verdict form required the jury to answer specific questions of fact,
and the court entered judgment based on the facts that the jury
found. See Morales, 141 P.3d at 906. Accordingly, Kimberly wasn’t
required to object to any inconsistencies before the jury was
22 discharged to preserve this issue for appeal, so we will consider the
merits of her argument.
¶ 48 Kimberly asserts that the verdict is inconsistent because it
found Jerry liable for abuse of process in the Nevada case but didn’t
award her any damages “where the undisputed evidence proved
otherwise.” Referring to exhibits admitted at trial, she contends
that she presented “undisputed evidence” of the attorney and court
filing fees she incurred in the Nevada case. She argues that,
because the evidence admitted at trial also showed that she
received money from her trust to pay for her legal fees and other
expenses, the jury was “swayed by their emotions, personal biases,
and prejudice” and “evidently biased towards her” when it awarded
her zero damages despite finding in her favor on the abuse of
process claim concerning the Nevada case. We are unpersuaded.
¶ 49 Kimberly’s opening brief only addresses the jury’s decision not
to award her damages for attorney fees and filing costs related to
the Nevada case. However, her argument fails to acknowledge that
she agreed to bear her own attorney fees and costs in a stipulation
signed by her counsel in that case. Kimberly’s counsel didn’t object
when Jerry’s counsel offered the stipulation into evidence, and
23 Kimberly didn’t deny that her lawyer entered into the stipulation
when asked about it at trial. Kimberly fails to identify anything in
the record that otherwise supports her contention that the jury was
biased against her. See Mauldin v. Lowery, 255 P.2d 976, 977
(Colo. 1953) (“It is the task of counsel to inform us . . . both as to
the specific errors relied on and the grounds and supporting facts
and authorities therefor.”).
¶ 50 Accordingly, we conclude that the jury’s award of zero
damages to Kimberly is supported by the record, and thus, we will
not disturb the award. See Averyt, 265 P.3d at 462; see also Higgs
v. Dist. Ct., 713 P.2d 840, 860-61 (Colo. 1985) (“[A]bsent an award
so excessive or inadequate as to shock the judicial conscience and
to raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice, corruption
or other improper cause invaded the trial, the jury’s determination
of the fact is considered inviolate.”) (citation omitted).
IV. Disposition
¶ 51 The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE LIPINSKY and JUDGE JOHNSON concur.