court’s legal conclusions de novo, including “state law legal issues.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). III. For its first argument, the Glasser Pension Plan asks this court to dismiss the appeal outright for alleged fraud on the court relating to the bankruptcy court’s order permitting the Brocks to withdraw the settlement agreement. There is no merit to this argument, which is nothing more than an end run on an order that has not been appealed to either the BAP or this court. As to the merits, the parties agree that Colorado law applies. They also agree that Colorado law recognizes the general rule that a creditor can reach a debtor’s assets placed in trust to the same extent that the debtor is entitled to reach such assets. See, e.g., In re Cohen, 8 P.3d 429, 433 (Colo.1999) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). They
holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding that the creditors had standing because the plan eliminated their interests in the borrower notes and deeds of trust and disposed of the assets in the estate from which they seek to be paid holding creditors can reach assets of trust to the same extent as the maximum amount that would be payable to the beneficiary in the trustees discretion holding that creditors of a trust beneficiary were prohibited from intervening in an action involving a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary concerning distribution of the trust corpus holding that a constructive trust had arisen on a third partys house due to her use of trust assets which had been diverted by the paca trustee to pay the mortgage and finding that the trust beneficiary plaintiffs are entitled to a lien on the property in the amount of the diverted funds