Categories: Colorado construction attorneysColorado construction litigationColorado Mechanic's Liensconstruction legislationDenver construction attorneys

Senate Bill 11-264: The Clarification of Lien Bonding Statutes

On July 1, 2011, Senate Bill 11-264 became effective, which legislatively overruled the Colorado Court of Appeals controversial decision in Weize Company, LLC v. Martz Supply Co. 251 P.3d 489 (Colo. App. 2010). A notice of lis pendens gives notice of pending litigation to persons potentially acquiring interests in the subject property. Hewitt v. Rice, 154 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2007). The recording of a lis pendens binds any subsequent purchaser subject to the litigation’s effect on the property, thereby discouraging purchases because of the potential for unknown consequences. Kerns v. Kerns, 53 P.3d 1157, 1165 fn. 6 (Colo. 2002). In Weize, the court held that a notice of lis pendens must be filed when a suit involves property until the completion of litigation, even when a proper bond is substituted for the lien.
In making its decision, the Weize court found the plain language of C.R.S. §§ 38-22-131(3) and 127(3) persuasive. According to the court, the two statutes collectively exclude lien release bonds from the types of bonds that are exempt from filing lis pendens. However, the court did not discuss the other sections of C.R.S. §§ 38-22-131 and 132 (collectively allow for the substitution of a bond in place of a mechanic’s lien and discharge of the lien) or C.R.S. § 38-22.5-11 (allows for the substitution of a bond in place of a real estate broker’s lien and discharge of the lien). Further, according to C.R.S. § 38-22-132, once a bond is properly substituted for a lien, there is no longer an action that affects the title to real property. Therefore, any filing of lis pendens would be in conflict with C.R.S. § 38-22-110 that requires relief be claimed affecting the title to real property before filing a notice of lis pendens.

In response to the Weize decision, SB11-264 was enacted to amend C.R.S. §§ 38-22-132, 38-22.5-111, and 38-35-110. The legislature now made it crystal clear that a proper bond is a suitable substitute for filing lis pendens. Therefore, owners of property subject to litigation are now again free to market their properly-bonded property without the burden of lis pendens on title.


For additional information regarding Colorado construction litigation, please contact David M. McLain at (303) 987-9813 or by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com.

Published by
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
13 years ago

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…

4 weeks 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,…

4 weeks ago

Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

We are thrilled to announce that our very own Lisa Bondy Dunn has been recognized…

3 months 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…

3 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,…

5 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…

5 months ago