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

Denver’s Minimum Wage: How a Small Payroll Mistake Can Become a Big Problem for Colorado Contractors

A construction company underpays an employee by $2.32 for a single day’s work.  It corrects…

4 days ago

Colorado Is Pricing Itself Out of Prosperity: Housing Affordability, Government Policy, and the Cost of Building

Colorado built its reputation on opportunity.  For decades, the state attracted families, workers, entrepreneurs, and…

6 days ago

You Filed a Mechanic’s Lien. Then You Discovered a Mistake. Now What?

Recording a mechanic's lien is an important tool for Colorado contractors seeking payment for labor,…

1 week ago

One Building, Six Owners, One Defective Stucco System: How Do You Coordinate Repairs?

Colorado's new right-of-access statute may help address one of the unintended consequences of individually owned…

1 week ago

Same Insurers, Different Results: Another Chapter in Acuity v. Kinsale and the Limits of Co-Carrier Recovery Under Colorado Law

When multiple insurers potentially owe coverage for the same construction defect claim, can one insurer…

2 weeks ago

Not All Warranty E-Mails Are Notices of Claim

Colorado's construction defect statutes establish specific requirements for notices of claim and statutory tolling. It…

2 weeks ago