INTRODUCTION:

Settlement of a personal injury claim of a minor or an adult in need of protection under C.R.S. § 15-14-401 (hereinafter, a “protected person” or “respondent”) requires approval by a probate court in the county where the protected person either resides or has property. See C.R.P.P. 62(a), (b); C.R.S. § 15-14-108(3). The process for obtaining court approval of a protected person’s personal injury settlement is relatively straightforward:

1. A petition for approval of the protected person’s settlement must be filed by a person designated in C.R.P.P. 62(c) in the probate court where the protected person either resides or has property. The person filing the petition is known as the “Petitioner.” The information that must be included in the petition is outlined in C.R.P.P. 62(d)(1)-(7). A form Petition for Approval of Settlement of Claims Pursuant to C.R.P.P. 62 is available on the Colorado Judicial Branch website,​ www.coloradojudicial.gov​ (last visited Sept. 14, 2026).
2. After the petition has been submitted, the court must conduct an appearance hearing to determine whether to approve the settlement and to take the actions required by C.R.P.P. 62(a).

However, this process is not without practical concerns. By way of example:

Courts are busy

In this author’s experience, it is not uncommon for the first available hearing date to be three or four months out from the date the petition for approval of the settlement is filed. The parties to the protected person’s settlement may want a more expeditious final resolution of the matter.

SCHEDULING CONFLICTS

While probate courts generally provide several options for the date and time of the hearing, there can be situations where it would be beneficial, or necessary, for the parties to the settlement to be able to select a hearing date and time. This may be due to, for example, the number of people who will participate in the hearing; the (inflexible) schedules of the hearing participants due to work, school, or medical appointments; and/or a participant’s medical condition.

COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES

There may be complex factual and/or legal issues that need to be taken into consideration when determining the reasonableness of the settlement on behalf of the protected person. (Note that it is the probate court that presides over the petition to approve the protected person’s settlement, not the civil court. So, even if the protected person’s personal injury claim settles after suit has been filed and during litigation, the judge presiding over the personal injury matter in the civil court will not be the one presiding over the petition to approve the settlement.) In this case, the parties to the settlement may be concerned that – in the setting of a hearing to approve the settlement – the complex factual and/or legal issues may not be readily apparent and/or may require extensive explanation to the court. The parties to the protected person’s settlement may find it beneficial to ensure that the judge presiding over the petition for approval of the settlement has experience with and expertise in such issues.

In the above situations or other situations where the parties to a protected person’s settlement have practical concerns about the process for obtaining court approval of the settlement, appointment of a retired or resigned justice or judge (hereinafter referred to as a “retired judge”) pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-3-111 may offer a solution.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Like the process for obtaining court approval of a protected person’s settlement, the process for appointing a retired judge is relatively straightforward. The process is governed by – and the requirements are spelled out in – a local statute, C.R.S. § 13-3-111, and court rule, C.R.C.P. 122.

This article will not recite the full contents of these legal authorities. Rather, having recently undergone the process of appointing a retired judge to preside over a petition to approve a protected person’s settlement, this author found that this seems to be an uncommon use of C.R.S. § 13-3-111. This author could not find any resources about how to use C.R.S. § 13-3-111 for this purpose. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to address some practical issues that may arise when using C.R.S. § 13-3-111 to appoint a retired judge to preside over a petition to approve a protected person’s settlement.

ISSUE 1 – How to Seek Appointment of a Retired Judge Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-3-111 and C.R.C.P. 122 to Preside Over a Petition for Approval of a Protected Person’s Settlement

At any time after the petition for approval of the protected person’s settlement is filed in the appropriate probate court (by the Petitioner(s) and on behalf of the protected person), the parties, with the approval of all persons who must consent to the appointment of a retired judge to preside over the petition (see Issue 2, below), can move for such appointment by filing a joint, stipulated motion with the Colorado Supreme Court. See C.R.C.P. 122(a)(1), (c). [Note: As of fall of 2025, motions for appointment of a retired judge pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-3-111 and C.R.C.P. 122 could not be filed electronically with the Colorado Supreme Court. They had to be delivered to the Supreme Court for non-electronic/paper filing.]

The contents of the motion are outlined in C.R.C.P. 122.

The retired judge to be appointed must meet the qualifications specified in C.R.C.P. 122(b). The retired judge must agree to accept the appointment in the event the motion is granted by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. The retired judge’s approval of the appointment must be indicated by his or her signature on the motion. See C.R.C.P. 122(c).

The above is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the requirements that must be met for the Supreme Court to approve the appointment of a retired judge. The reader should refer to C.R.C.P. 122 for a complete list of these requirements.

Issue 2 – Agreement of “the Parties”

Appointment of a retired judge to preside over any civil action requires the agreement of all “the parties” to the action. See C.R.S. § 13-3-111(1), C.R.C.P. 122(a)(1).

In connection with the personal injury claim or action, the protected person, as the claimant or plaintiff, is a party to the claim or action, and so is the adverse person or defendant.

However, in connection with a petition for approval of the protected person’s settlement, the only parties to the petition are the Petitioner(s) and the protected person. The adverse person or defendant is not a “party” to the petition. Rather, the adverse party or defendant is an interested person. See C.R.S. § 15-10-201(27), (43); see also C.R.P.P. 62(e), C.R.S. §§ 15-14-404(1), (2).

Thus, by technical definition, the only “parties” to a motion to appoint the retired judge to preside over the petition for approval of the protected person’s settlement would be the Petitioner(s) and the protected person. However, the adverse person or defendant, as the person paying and being released in connection with the settlement, also has an interest in obtaining court approval of the settlement. Accordingly, the retired judge to be appointed, who must agree to the appointment, and/or the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, who has “entire[]” discretion over whether to grant the appointment, see C.R.C.P. 122(a)(2), will likely require the adverse person or defendant to consent to the appointment of the retired judge.

Thus, while the Petitioner(s) and the protected person may be the named “parties” to the motion to appoint the retired judge to preside over the petition, the motion should state that the adverse person or defendant approves the motion, and just as the retired judge must sign the motion to indicate his or her approval, the adverse person or defendant to the personal injury claim or action should also sign the motion.

Issue 3 – Costs

The appointment of a retired judge must be “without expense to the State of Colorado.” See C.R.C.P.122(a)(2). The retired judge may need a handful of hours to review the petition and prepare for the hearing, up to one hour or so to conduct the hearing, and another handful of hours to perform post-hearing duties, if any, depending on the agreed-upon scope and duration of the retired judge’s appointment. Indeed, the motion to appoint the retired judge must state, for approval by the Colorado Supreme Court, the rate of compensation to be paid to the retired judge; a “realistic estimate of all compensation and expenses for the [retired judge], any needed personnel, rental of an appropriate facility outside the courthouse, if needed, in which to hold the proceedings, payment for any requested jury, and all other anticipated compensation and expenses, including travel, lodging and meals and provisions assuring that all such compensation will be paid by the parties [or persons consenting to the appointment of the retired judge]”; the agreement as to who will pay the expenses; and the agreement of the parties and persons consenting to the appointment of the retired judge that “none of the compensation and expenses shall be paid by the state of Colorado.” See C.R.C.P. 122(c)(2), (4)-(6).

In certain contexts, the fees and costs associated with appointing a retired judge may be very substantial; however, in the context of appointing a retired judge to preside over a petition for approval of a protected person’s settlement, they are not likely to be cost-prohibitive in many cases. For example:

(1) Compensation of Retired Judge. In the context of a petition for approval of a protected person’s settlement, the retired judge may be able to perform his or her duties in a relatively modest number of hours. The retired judge may need a handful of hours to review the petition for approval of the protected person’s settlement and prepare for the hearing, up to one or so hour to conduct the hearing, and another handful of hours to perform post-hearing duties, if any, depending on the agreed-upon scope and duration of the retired judge’s appointment.

(2) Facility Costs. The parties, persons consenting to the appointment of the retired judge, and the retired judge can specify in the motion their agreement that the hearing to approve the settlement will take place virtually (though they may want or need to specify a contingency plan in the event an in-person hearing is necessary).

(3) Other Personnel Costs – Court Reporter. The cost of retaining a court reporter for the hearing to approve the settlement, which usually only lasts about an hour or so, will likely be financially manageable for the parties or persons consenting to the appointment of the retired judge.

Issue 4 – Duration of Retired Judge’s Appointment

Depending on the age and/or disability of the protected person, the duration of a court’s supervision of the protected person’s settlement may span many years. However, in the motion for appointment of the retired judge, the parties can specify the duration of the retired judge’s appointment.

By way of example, in the context of a petition for approval of a protected person’s settlement, the parties may want the retired judge’s appointment to last through the entry of the retired judge’s order approving the settlement and any concurrent or related orders (e.g., order appointing a conservator, if applicable); through the submission of specific filings required by said order (e.g., through the submission of the Acknowledgement of Deposit of Funds to Restricted Account, the Conservator’s Financial Plan with Inventory, or other filing); or until the date on which court supervision of the protected person’s settlement ends.

When the retired judge’s duties on the case conclude, the parties to the petition “shall file in the record of the case in the originating court a report of total compensation paid for the Appointed Judge’s services and the total expenses paid by the parties in the case.” C.R.C.P. 122(e). Practically, this Report will alert the originating court that the case has reverted back to the court. Consider expressly stating in this Report the following: (1) By Order of the Colorado Supreme Court dated ________ [date], Judge __________ [name] was appointed to serve as the Appointed Judge in this matter. (2) The duration of the Appointed Judge’s appointment was __________ [insert duration of duties]. (3) [Insert details that show that the duties have concluded.] (4) Accordingly, the Appointed Judge’s duties on the case have concluded. (5) The total compensation paid for the Appointed Judge’s services was $_____ [amount]. (6) In addition, the following case expenses were incurred: [itemize case expenses].

In the event the parties and retired judge contemplate a long duration of the retired judge’s appointment, the following provisions concerning reversion of the probate matter to the originating court (i.e., the district court or probate court in which the petition was filed) are worth knowing:

C.R.C.P. 122(e) – Reversion Due to Costs: “If, at any time, the Appointed Judge determines that the funds on deposit are insufficient to cover all further compensation and expenses, the Appointed Judge may order the parties promptly to deposit sufficient additional funds to cover such amount. An Appointed Judge may withdraw from the appointment after reasonable notice and with permission of the Chief Justice if this order is not complied with, and the case shall revert to the originating court.” C.R.C.P. 122(e).

C.R.C.P. 122(j) – Reversion Due to Recusal, Removal, Death, or Incapacity of the Retired Judge: “An Appointed Judge shall preside over all matters throughout the duration of the appointment unless the Appointed Judge recuses, is removed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 97, dies or becomes incapacitated. In any such circumstance, the case proceedings shall immediately revert to the originating court.” C.R.C.P. 122(j).

Conclusion

Appointing a retired judge to preside over the petition for approval of a protected person’s settlement pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-3-111 and C.R.C.P. 122 may not be necessary in many cases. However, when parties to the protected person’s settlement encounter practical problems with the traditional process due to, for example, time, scheduling conflicts, or complexity of factual or legal issues impacting the settlement, appointment of a retired judge to preside over the petition for approval of the settlement can be a reasonable and (perhaps surprisingly) affordable option.

Parties to a protected person’s settlement considering this option should carefully read the requirements of C.R.S. § 13-3-111 and C.R.C.P. 122, which must be strictly followed. Many of the requirements are straightforward and require no explanation. However, hopefully, this article answered some practical issues that may come to mind when reading the legal authorities and considering whether the process is practical for your specific matter, or that may arise if the parties to a protected person’s settlement elect to seek appointment of a retired judge to preside over the petition for approval of the settlement.

“Professionalism in communication isn’t about speed; it’s about clarity, care, and respect”.