In Palu and Beyer v. Toney, 2011 WL 2560249 (Bankr. D. Colo.), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado determined that a Colorado District Court order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff homebuyers was binding on the Bankruptcy Court in the defendant contractor’s bankruptcy proceeding based on issue preclusion.[1]
Pertinent to this column is the subject matter of the summary judgment motion: Colorado’s Seller’s Property Disclosure (Form LC-18-5-04). In the underlying state court action, the plaintiff homebuyers filed a motion for summary judgment contending that the defendant contractor represented to them, through the Seller’s Property Disclosure, that there were no present or past conditions involving moisture or water problems, roof problems or leaks, skylight problems, or gutter downspout problems.
In granting plaintiffs’ motion, the state court determined that the defendant contractor made these representations on her Seller’s Property Disclosure despite witnessing water leaking from the skylight onto the floor and being aware of repairs to the roof, skylight, and interior drywall prior to the sale of the property. The state court also determined that the past water damages and repairs were material facts, because “any past water damages and resulting repairs are information a reasonable person under these circumstances would regard as important in deciding what to do.” Additionally, the state court determined that the defendant contractor intended for the plaintiff buyers to rely on her representations, and that the plaintiff buyers did so.
Notably, there is a “Seller’s Advisory” contained on Colorado’s Seller’s Property Disclosure which indicates that “failure to disclose a known material defect may result in legal liability.” Although the Palu case is an example of a renovation contractor’s blatantly false disclosure, the lesson is still clear: Colorado courts will treat the representations made on your next Seller’s Disclosure very seriously.
For additional information regarding Colorado construction litigation, please contact David M. McLain at (303) 987-9813 or by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com.


[1] “Issue Preclusion” operates to bar re-litigation of an issue that has been finally decided by a court in a prior action.

Recent Posts

Four HHMR Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of Best Lawyers®

Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is proud to announce that Best Lawyers® has recognized…

3 weeks ago

Building More Than a Ramp: HHMR and the Home Builders Foundation

Last Friday, four members of the Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell team traded briefs, depositions,…

3 weeks ago

The Goal Is the Repair, Not the Lawsuit: What Colorado HOA Boards Should Consider Before Suing a Builder

Fourteen years ago, we cautioned Colorado homeowners associations against a “ready, fire, aim” approach to…

3 weeks ago

Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act

Editor's Note: Wadsworth Revisited In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals' decision in…

4 weeks ago

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and…

4 weeks ago

Colorado Court Affirms Attorneys’ Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Counsel for Pursuing Unsupported CCPA Claims

The Colorado Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s award of more than $241,000…

1 month ago