Thread: Bowlen's brother files court motion to remove Joe Ellis

Hey Cugel, are appellate briefs as awful in real life as they are in school?

Also, do you have an owner you'd prefer.

The only important point on this for Broncos fans is:

1. Will the new owner be as dedicated to winning SBs as her father? Not all owners are. She could even sell out the family's entire interest to outside parties if she wanted to cash out and get maybe five or six hundred million.

More than enough to last for any one's lifetime of massive indulgence. Or move the team to a new city. We don't know. If you think it can't happen, just talk to the folks in Oakland or St. Louis about that. I'm not saying it WOULD happen, just that it's an unsettling possibility.

2. Will the new owner want to fire John Elway who is famously close to Joe Ellis. If Beth Bowlen wins her suit, she would be likely to move against Elway, or Elway might leave with Joe Ellis.

In any case John Elway might very well be gone by the time this is all resolved in court. He isn't going to stay here forever. And, if the team continues to tank and he screws up finding a QB in the draft again next year, or ends up drafting Paxton Lynch, Jr. Elway could be fired. Ultimately.

There's not an infinite amount of patience among Broncos fans.

We're going on 3 seasons without a playoff appearance now, and 2 consecutive losing seasons for the first time in decades. And there ZERO plan in sight to make any of this better any time soon either.

Elway refused to draft a QB because "we don't intend to just kick Paxton to the curb." Only Paxton flamed out (in every sense of the word) so they wound up with Chad Kelly who just went down like the Hindenburg.



So, Keenum's replacement is nowhere on the roster, and there's no long term answer before next year's draft. And we all know how great Elway is at drafting QBs. Since Manning retired he's tried, Brock Osweiler, Paxton Lynch, Trevor Siemian, Paxton Lynch again, Siemian again, Osweiler again, and now Keenum.

Not exactly Canton bound, that crew.

Originally Posted by King87

Hey Cugel, are appellate briefs as awful in real life as they are in school?

Also, do you have an owner you'd prefer.

I loved appellate briefs and was a law clerk on the court of appeals out of school, then practiced appellate law for a bit! So, I'm the wrong person to ask!

Of course, I gave up litigating long ago and don't miss it at all. Not one bit. A corporate practice is way more fun and relaxing.

Originally Posted by Cugel

I loved appellate briefs and was a law clerk on the court of appeals out of school, then practiced appellate law for a bit! So, I'm the wrong person to ask!

Of course, I gave up litigating long ago and don't miss it at all. Not one bit. A corporate practice is way more fun and relaxing.

Earlier you said they were a pain but not that bad. That's sort of how I feel.

I don't wear briefs

Originally Posted by slim

I don't wear briefs

I find boxers wear out too quick and then sag and women complain if I wear them around the house.

Originally Posted by Cugel

I find boxers wear out too quick and then sag and women complain if I wear them around the house.

I find that women wear out too quick and then sag and then I complain when they hang around my house

Originally Posted by Nomad

Yep. Just like back to winning SBs. We gonna beat dem Chiefs on Sunday mornin

Gonna depend on Musgrave. If he goes run heavy and starts mixing some play actions in. I think we win (granted, the defense is going to have to play like they did last week).

I feel better about this game than I've felt about most of the games this season.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Yup. I immediately couldn't understand how Bill Bowlen would have any standing to assert a claim, since he sold his stock in the Broncos long ago. So, since he no longer has any economic stake in the team, how has he been injured so the court could rule in his favor? He's asking for a writ to remove the trustees from the Bowlen Trust, but isn't a trust beneficiary, and as far as we know isn't a creditor.

To skip a boring legal lecture, he has no standing to sue that I can see. I could think of a few ways around that, and I'm sure his lawyers have researched it.

Colorado statute regarding probate, trusts and fiduciaries states that a "The principal's caregiver or another person that demonstrates sufficient interest in the principal's welfare" may petition the court for a power of attorney or to review an agent's conduct.

Bill Bowlen is asserting that as Pat's brother and knowing what Pat wanted in terms of the future of the Broncos as it relates to his family, that he has standing based on his interests in the Bowlen's welfare.

I was originally thinking the same, that he wouldn't have any standing as he wouldn't be able to claim any injury (with the possible exception if he's named as a successor beneficiary upon Pat's death and could make the case that the trustees were failing their fiduciary responsibility and damaging an asset that would be partially his in the future), but then when I read the motion and it mentioned c.r.s 15-14-716(h) as the basis for Bill's standing that they are asserting, I see why they are making the case he has standing (not a sure thing the judge will agree, but they have a solid shot).

Not to bore the layman with too much legalese, upon further review of the particulars and what-have-you’s I concur with Tned.

I think.

Originally Posted by slim

Originally Posted by Cugel

I find boxers wear out too quick and then sag and women complain if I wear them around the house.

I find that women wear out too quick and then sag and then I complain when they hang around my house

Laying in my bed laughing my ass off at 6am. Pure gold slim

Originally Posted by Jaded

Not to bore the layman with too much legalese, upon further review of the particulars and what-have-you’s I concur with Tned.

I think.

Hear hear!

Originally Posted by Jaded

Not to bore the layman with too much legalese, upon further review of the particulars and what-have-you’s I concur with Tned.

I think.

As a general rule, that's the safest course of action -- due to my superior intellect, always being right, humble and modest approach to life....

Originally Posted by slim

I find that women wear out too quick and then sag and then I complain when they hang around my house

That one made me laugh and choke on my soup!

Originally Posted by Tned

Colorado statute regarding probate, trusts and fiduciaries states that a "The principal's caregiver or another person that demonstrates sufficient interest in the principal's welfare" may petition the court for a power of attorney or to review an agent's conduct.

Bill Bowlen is asserting that as Pat's brother and knowing what Pat wanted in terms of the future of the Broncos as it relates to his family, that he has standing based on his interests in the Bowlen's welfare.

I was originally thinking the same, that he wouldn't have any standing as he wouldn't be able to claim any injury (with the possible exception if he's named as a successor beneficiary upon Pat's death and could make the case that the trustees were failing their fiduciary responsibility and damaging an asset that would be partially his in the future), but then when I read the motion and it mentioned c.r.s 15-14-716(h) as the basis for Bill's standing that they are asserting, I see why they are making the case he has standing (not a sure thing the judge will agree, but they have a solid shot).

Ah, good. I never litigated any trust issues. I just draft them!
I was thinking mostly of any allegation that Bowlen was being mistreated, his assets squandered, or other mistreatment of the protected person. There's nothing to suggest Pat is being mistreated in his care, or that the value of his assets are declining in any way. Rather the reverse. Can't really argue that the trust is squandering assets or failing to meet the prudent investor rule when they are rocketing upward in value every single year as the value of NFL franchises has increased from $84m or something when Bowlen bought the team to $2.5billion now.

That's a difficult claim to make. Should a successor be formally appointed for his business interest while he is still alive? Or should his chosen business partners and trustees be allowed to exercise their discretion in following the terms of the trust with respect to his heirs.

Might be easier to for the court to punt that decision while Pat is alive and let the trustees continue to exercise their authority, but with the later right to complain about their choices when they later make them. But, when Pat is dead, then the trustees have to formally reject Beth Bowlen and choose her sister, or to sell to an outside party.

Good luck with that argument! I think this whole lawsuit looks like something where the league might ultimately decide to step in and decide the whole thing for the good of football. I don't think the other owners will be easy seeing Pats' heirs passed over for sale to an outsider. They might not permit that. They all have heirs or are heirs themselves.