AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The petitioner, a self-represented litigant, sought to challenge the handling of the Estate of Forrest Fenn, specifically through a petition for allowance of claim. The petitioner's claims revolved around allegations of fraud and breach of unilateral contract, asserting a right to financial records from the estate to prove his entitlement as the "one true finder" of the Fenn treasure. The case also involved disputes over procedural matters, including the scheduling and handling of a docket call and trial dates, as well as accusations of malicious abuse of process and reliance on falsified evidence by the district court.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying his discovery request for financial records from the Estate of Forrest Fenn, which he claimed were relevant to his fraud and breach of unilateral contract claims. He also contended that the district court improperly deleted a docket call and altered trial dates without warning, and that he was wrongfully accused of malicious abuse of process. The petitioner further challenged the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, alleging reliance on falsified evidence.
• Respondent-Appellee: The specific arguments of the respondent-appellee are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the respondent opposed the petitioner's claims and supported the district court's decisions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the petitioner's discovery request for financial records from the Estate of Forrest Fenn.
• Whether the district court improperly deleted a docket call and altered trial dates without warning.
• Whether the district court erred in determining that the petitioner had engaged in malicious abuse of process.
• Whether the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were improper, specifically regarding the reliance on falsified evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the petitioner's petition for allowance of claim with prejudice.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge; BOGARDUS, Judge; BACA, Judge (Concurring): The panel unanimously affirmed the district court's decisions. The Court of Appeals found the petitioner's arguments unpersuasive, noting that he failed to demonstrate how the requested financial records were relevant to his claims (para 2), did not preserve his procedural complaints for review (para 3), and did not substantiate his allegations of malicious abuse of process or improper reliance on falsified evidence by the district court (paras 4-5). The court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to clearly point out errors in fact or law and noted that repetition of earlier arguments or failure to provide new facts, law, or argument to support his positions did not meet this burden. The court deferred to the district court's judgment on matters of fact-finding and credibility assessment, stating that it would not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder (para 5).