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

Action Needed: HB24-1230 Spells Trouble for Colorado Construction Industry and its Insurers

In an apparent gift to plaintiffs’ construction defect lawyers, Representatives Parenti and Bacon introduced House…

2 months ago

HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

HB24-1014 stands to eliminate the longstanding public impact requirement found within C.R.S. § 6-1-105(2) of…

2 months ago

At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Gets Serious About Construction Defect Reform – In a Constructive Way

On February 5th, Senators Zenzinger and Coleman, along with Representative Bird, introduced Senate Bill 24-106…

3 months ago

The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

January 10th marked the first day of the 2024 Colorado legislative session.  After the pomp…

4 months ago

Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Recognized in 2024 Best Law Firm® Rankings

We are thrilled to announce that Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC ("HHMR") has been…

6 months ago

Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

In a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals…

6 months ago