Leonard R. Higdon
Divorce & Family Law, Child Custody, Lawsuit & Dispute, Criminal, Felony, Civil Litigation
We Will Help You Evaluate Options We Will Protect Your Interests
We Will Help You Evaluate Options We Will Protect Your Interests
Divorce & Family Law, Family Law,
8547 E Arapahoe Road #J316
Englewood, CO 80112
Accident & Injury, Car Accident, Wrongful Death, Bed Bug, Workers' Compensation
5675 DTC Blvd. Suite 250
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Real Estate, Real Estate Other, Business,
5555 DTC Parkway Ste. 340
Englewood, CO 80111
Accident & Injury, Personal Injury, Car Accident, Motorcycle Accident, Wrongful Death
7375 E. Orchard Road Suite 300
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Divorce & Family Law,
6081 S. Quebec Street Suite 202
Centennial, CO 80111
Criminal, DUI-DWI, Traffic, Accident & Injury,
8400 E Prentice Ave Ste 1500
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Estate,
6436 S. Racine Circle, Suite 227
Centennial, CO 80111
Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Accident & Injury, Civil Rights, Traffic
5445 DTC Parkway. Suite 825
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Accident & Injury, Car Accident, Personal Injury, Slip & Fall Accident, Wrongful Death
5350 S Roslyn St Ste 460
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Call for initial consultation, 800-752-1381.
Owner
Law Office of Leonard R. Higdon
1997 – Present
Denver Area
Colorado
1997
Fort Lewis College
B.A. (Philosophy)
1991
Shtutman v. Dareuskaya (In re Estate of Yudkin), 478 P.3d 732 (Colo. 2021)
When Viacheslav Yudkin died intestate, his ex-wife, Petitioner Svetlana Shtutman, was appointed personal representative of his estate. Respondent Tatsiana Dareuskaya sought Shtutman’s removal, asserting that she (Dareuskaya) should have had priority for that appointment as Yudkin’s common law wife. After many days of trial, the probate court found that although Yudkin and Dareuskaya cohabitated and held themselves out to their community as married, other factors weighed against a finding of common law marriage, including that the couple did not file joint tax returns, own joint property or accounts, or share a last name. The court of appeals reversed the magistrate’s order, concluding that the magistrate abused his discretion by misapplying the test for a common law marriage set out in Colorado v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987). Shtutman petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for certiorari review. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court was unclear whether the magistrate found Yudkin and Dareuskaya mutually agreed to enter into a marital relationship. Further, the magistrate’s treatment of certain evidence, such as the fact that the parties maintained separate finances and property, and that Dareuskaya never took Yudkin’s name, may have been appropriate under Lucero, but did not necessarily account for the legal and social changes to marriage acknowledged in In re Marriage of Hogsett & Neale, 2021 CO 1 __ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed and the matter ordered remanded to the probate court to reconsider whether the parties entered into a common law marriage under Hogsett.
Aurora Pub. Schs. v. A.S., 2023 CO 39 (Colo. 2023)
In January 2022, plaintiffs A.S. and her husband B.S. brought a claim under the Child Sexual Abuse Accountability Act (CSAAA or “Act”) against a former high school athletic coach and a school district, alleging that the coach sexually abused A.S. between 2001 and 2005 when she was a minor. At the time plaintiffs filed suit, any previously available claims for this alleged abuse was time-barred. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court’s review was whether the CSAAA was unconstitutionally retrospective to the extent it created a new cause of action for conduct that predated the Act, and for which any previously available claims would be time-barred. The Supreme Court concluded that because the CSAAA created a new cause of action for child sexual abuse, the Act created a new obligation and attached a new disability with respect to past transactions or considerations to the extent it permitted victims to bring claims for which any available cause of action would have been time-barred. Therefore, the CSAAA amounted to unconstitutional retrospective legislation as applied to the plaintiffs’ claim under the Act. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss.
In Re: Marriage of Gwilliam
Case remanded for new trial on relocation. Prevailed at hearing.
Founded 1997
Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Accident & Injury