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

BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

In the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United…

1 week ago

Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale

Construction projects are inherently complex, and insurance coverage plays a crucial role in managing risks,…

1 week ago

Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how…

2 months ago

Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025

We are thrilled to announce that David M. McLain, a founding partner of Higgins, Hopkins,…

4 months ago

Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

In the case of Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners (2024…

4 months ago