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

Navigating Construction Defect Claims and Statutes of Limitation: Key Lessons from Stoecklein v. Fayette Farms

In the recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision Stoecklein v. Fayette Farms, LLC (2024 WL…

2 weeks ago

Colorado Senate Bill 25-157: A Gift to Plaintiffs’ Attorneys That Will Cost Colorado Businesses and Homebuyers

Over the years, plaintiff’s attorneys have steadily attempted to chip away at the guardrails that…

3 weeks ago

Colorado Senate Bill 25-185: Preserving Homeowners’ Rights to Assert Negligence Claims Against Subcontractors and Design Professionals

For years, Colorado’s economic loss rule has not applied to residential construction and has not…

3 weeks ago

Colorado House Bill 25-1261 Will Skyrocket Housing Costs — Here’s Why You Should Oppose It

Colorado lawmakers have introduced House Bill 25-1261, a measure that, while ostensibly aimed at protecting…

3 weeks ago

Colorado’s Housing Crisis: How S.B. 25-131 Could Be a Step in the Right Direction

The cost of housing in Colorado has been an ongoing concern for homeowners, tenants, and…

4 weeks ago

Veolia Water Technologies, Inc. v. Antero Treatment LLC: Colorado Court of Appeals Addresses Fraud in Design-Build Contracts

The Colorado Court of Appeals recently issued a significant decision in Veolia Water Technologies, Inc.…

1 month ago