English v. Thorpe

── English v. Thorpe ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. SUMMARY April 16, 2026 2026COA29 No. 25CA0687, English v. Thorpe — Civil Procedure — Amended and Supplemental Pleadings — Amendments by Leave of the Court — Dismissal of Actions After the filing of a responsive pleading, C.R.C.P. 15(a) permits a party to amend their pleading “by leave of court” and dictates that “leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” By contrast, C.R.C.P. 41 addresses the dismissal of an action against a party. No rule or reported Colorado appellate case has yet addressed which rule applies when a party seeks to amend their pleading by dismissing some, but not all, of the claims it brought against a defending party. For the first time in a published Colorado opinion, a division of the court of appeals addresses this question. The division concludes that Rule 15, rather than Rule 41, controls when a motion to amend a pleading proposes to dismiss some, but not all, claims asserted against a defending party. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2026COA29 Court of Appeals No. 25CA0687 Montrose County District Court No. 22CV30100 Honorable D. Cory Jackson, Judge Danny English and Dean English, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Shirley J. Thorpe, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division IV Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ Freyre and Brown, JJ., concur Announced April 16, 2026 Brian Kidnay, P.C., Brian Kidnay, Montrose, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Wegener Lane & Evans, P.C., Benjamin Wegener, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 This appeal arises from a dispute between Shirley J. Thorpe and the estate of Joseph English. The estate, through co-personal representatives Dean English and Daniel “Danny” English, brought claims against Thorpe for unjust enrichment and conversion related to a home that Joseph and Thorpe jointly occupied.1 Dean and Danny are Joseph’s sons. ¶2 Several months into the litigation, Thorpe moved to amend her answer and counterclaims to dismiss her counterclaims for entry of a declaration that a business partnership existed between her and Joseph and for winding up that partnership. The district court denied her motion, and the case proceeded to trial. The district court found that a partnership existed, awarded the estate monetary damages for Joseph’s interest in the partnership, and, alternatively, awarded the estate damages on its unjust enrichment claim. ¶3 Thorpe now appeals the district court’s ruling precluding her from amending her answer and counterclaims, its conclusion that a 1 Because there are multiple parties involved in this case with the shared surname of English, we refer to Joseph English, his brother, and his sons by their first names. We intend no disrespect by doing so. 1  partnership existed, and its damage awards to the estate. We reverse the judgment and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. I. Background ¶4 Thorpe and Joseph were in a romantic relationship for almost twenty-five years, which ended with Joseph’s death in 2022. For the first