Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category

Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements.

The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps.

First, the board must schedule a meeting of all homeowners and notify the affected construction professionals of the time and place.

Second, after waiting at least five days, the board must deliver notice of the meeting and the potential construction defect action to all homeowners at their last known addresses. This notice must also go to the construction professionals. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects.

Third, the board must conduct the actual meeting of the homeowners. The construction professionals named must be allowed to attend and address the unit owners during the meeting. The construction professionals may make an offer of repairs to the homeowners at that time, but they are not obligated to do so. The meeting must occur between ten and fifteen days after the mailing of the second notice, or else the subsequent vote will be void. There is some ambiguity in the statute, and boards may therefore wish to schedule this meeting exactly ten days after mailing to avoid future challenge.

Fourth, the board must tally the votes of all homeowners on whether to proceed with the construction defect action. The vote can occur by any written means but must occur within ninety days of the mailing of the notice, and this time period may not be extended. Subject to certain exceptions, the association may only proceed with the construction defect action if a majority of voting homeowners approve the construction defect action. Some homeowners are excluded from this vote: The Association need not count votes from the developer or its affiliates, banks that own homes, owners deemed to be nonresponsive, or owners of homes of a type in which no defect is alleged in communities where common expenses are not shared.

The law contains a number of nuances and technical requirements not discussed in this summary, and associations considering a potential construction defect action should contact a qualified attorney to ensure compliance with its provisions. Some associations may also have to follow other requirements contained in their covenants or in local ordinances, to the extent such terms are not preempted by state statutes.

HB 17-1279 does not obviate the existing requirement that an association serve a construction professional with a notice of claim and consider an offer of repairs prior to commencing a lawsuit or arbitration. The new law contemplates that the notice of claim would be sent first, and that the meeting and vote would occur if the construction professional’s response to the notice of claim was inadequate. The statutes of limitation and repose remain tolled during both the notice of claim period and the subsequent voting period.

The new law was enacted to address builders’ perceived fear that HOA boards were filing construction defect lawsuits without notifying their members. Opponents of the bill noted that the first Construction Defect Action Reform Act had already established mandatory notice requirements back in 2001, but builders claimed that these requirements did not go far enough. Stakeholders on both sides of the debate agreed to support HB 17-1279 as a compromise in 2017 in hopes of spurring more condominium construction without sacrificing consumer protections.

Attorney Jesse Witt was active in negotiations over the content of HB 17-1279 at the state capitol, and The Witt Law Firm is available to assist board members and others with questions about the new requirements of HB 17-1279. The firm also maintains strategic partnerships with specialists in homeowner association elections and voting requirements, and it has construction experts available to evaluate potential claims. Please visit for more information.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that developers can retain control over community covenants in perpetuity by recording a covenant that requires declarant consent to any amendments. Although the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) states that such controls should be void, the court nevertheless ruled that a declarant may veto amendments that alter the dispute resolution procedures for construction defect actions at any time.

The case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Ass’n v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 15CO508, arose when the community’s members discovered widespread construction defects. When the declarant developed the project, it had recorded a declaration of covenants that purported to waive the homeowners’ right to a jury trial and instead require that any construction defect disputes be resolved by a private arbitration panel. The declaration also prohibited the homeowners from recovering attorney fees and costs, and it limited the declarant’s liability for damages. Consistent with CCIOA, the declaration allowed the homeowners to amend their covenants by a 67% vote, but it recited that the declarant could veto any such amendment prior to the sale of the last unit to a homeowner. The covenants further stated that the declarant must consent to any amendment that altered the construction defect restrictions.

When the developer refused to make acceptable repairs to the defects, the Vallagio homeowners voted to amend their covenants to eliminate the restrictions and liability limitations. Their vote occurred after the sale of the last unit and passed with a 67% majority, but the declarant did not provide its consent. Shortly thereafter, the association filed suit to recover the cost of repairing the defective work and damages for violating the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), and it demanded a jury trial. The association named the declarant as a defendant along with the community’s general contractor and two former board members.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration and argued that the homeowners’ vote was ineffective without the declarant’s consent. They further argued that arbitration clauses in homeowners’ individual purchase agreements bound the association. In response, the association asserted that the homeowners’ vote was valid, that the requirement of declarant consent was void under CCIOA’s provisions for amending covenants, that only the declarant (not the other defendants) had standing to enforce the arbitration covenants, that the homeowners’ individual purchase contracts did not bind the association, and that CCPA claims were not arbitrable. The district court agreed with the association and denied the defendants’ motion.

The defendants appealed, and a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed. The division concluded that, although CCIOA prohibits a declarant from recording covenants that require more than a two-thirds majority vote to amend a declaration, CCIOA did not invalidate a covenant that required a declarant’s consent to such an amendment. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the purchase contracts bound the association, but it held that CCPA claims could be subject to arbitration on remand. The division remanded the case for determination of whether the other defendants had standing to enforce the arbitration covenant, or whether this term only protected the declarant itself from suit.

After granting certiorari review, the supreme court affirmed the court of appeals. The court held that the provisions of CCIOA that invalidate higher voting percentages for declaration amendments did not preclude declarants from adding a separate requirement that they consent to amendments that passed with the required 67% majority. The court found support for its decision in other sections of CCIOA that require declarant consent, apparently choosing to ignore the statutory language that creates express exceptions for those situations.

The court also rejected the association’s argument that declarant-consent provisions violate CCIOA’s prohibitions on terms that favor the declarant over other unit owners. The court declined to consider the association’s alternative argument that perpetual declarant control violates CCIOA’s other provisions that impose a time limit on exercise of declarant rights, prohibit unconscionable contract clauses, and allow an association to terminate contracts with a declarant; the court found that these issues had not been fully briefed.

Finally, the court ruled that CCPA claims can be subject to binding arbitration, and that public policy does not prohibit a contractual waiver of a consumer’s right to file such claims in court.

Justices Márquez and Coats dissented from the majority. They recognized that, while CCIOA contemplates the possibility of declarant consent, the consent-to-amend provision at Vallagio evades the limitations and prohibitions of CCIOA “by effectively allowing the Declarant to grant itself permanent veto power over a supermajority of unit owners and thus unilaterally control the Association’s ability to amend the Declaration, even after the Declarant’s control period ends.” They further recognized that, while the majority’s decision arose in the context of a construction defect dispute, “its logic will permit declarants to control homeowners’ associations’ affairs into perpetuity simply by drafting self-serving provisions and then including a consent-to-amend provision that allows the declarant to demand consent to the amendment of any provision in the declaration.” This goes directly against CCIOA and the protections that the legislature enacted for homeowners.

Arbitration can be a quick, effective means of dispute resolution between sophisticated parties who choose to engage in alternative dispute resolution. Parties with equal bargaining power can specify what discovery is needed, how quickly the case must be resolved, and whether to limit administrative fees. Unfortunately, many corporations see arbitration as a way to avoid state consumer protection remedies, and they try to foist complicated, slow, costly procedures on consumers by inserting unfair arbitration clauses into form contracts. In the homebuilding context, national developers have begun to record such clauses in community declarations, giving homeowners zero opportunity to negotiate the terms or opt out of unfavorable terms. The Vallagio case provides one such example of this tactic. Unfortunately, Colorado courts have now ruled that this is permissible.

How this will affect homebuilding in the state remains to be seen. Last month,the General Assembly passed a compromise bill on construction defect litigation intended to spur housing construction by requiring homeowner association boards to provide additional notice to their members before filing suit over negligent work. This law, coupled with the Vallagio decision, may embolden some developers to cut corners on quality control and offer more cheap multifamily homes in the name of affordable housing.

Today’s decision comes on the heels of two other cases in which the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that CCIOA offers little protection for homeowners against developers who draft self-serving declarations, Ryan Ranch Community Ass’n v. Kelley, 380 P.3d 137 (Colo. 2016), and Pulte Home Corp. v. Countryside Community Ass’n, 382 P.3d 821 (Colo. 2016). The supreme court has now made clear that it will enforce covenants and statutes that benefit developers while ignoring covenants and statutes that benefit homeowners. Unless the legislature acts to strengthen CCIOA and make clear that the courts must uphold its consumer protection terms, this trend is unlikely to stop.

For the last four years, the homebuilders’ lobby has been aggressively pushing the idea that consumer protection laws are stifling condominium construction in Colorado. The lobbyists claim that the fear of liability for construction defects has forced many local developers to build apartments instead of condominiums. They have dismissed the notions that the shift to apartments merely reflects supply and demand, or that modern families might actually prefer to rent rather than buy. To support this theory, they have touted high condominium sales in other states. A new story from NPR’s Here & Now refutes this claim, however.

Contrary to what the lobbyists have been saying, data now confirm that large numbers of Americans prefer to rent, not buy, their homes. NPR reported today that home ownership in the U.S. fell to its lowest rate since 1965, while the share of U.S. households who rent is nearing a 50-year high. This trend appears nationwide and can hardly be blamed on consumer protection laws in Colorado.

This boom in apartments, furthermore, has not been bad for the construction industry. On the contrary, the report notes that demand for apartments is fueling a “construction resurgence,” and H.U.D. recently announced a new high in nationwide housing starts. In a recent interview, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders credited apartment construction for this rise: “New household formations are upping the demand for rental housing, which in turn is spurring the growth of multifamily production…. Meanwhile, single-family housing continues to hold firm.”

Colorado legislators should remember these statistics next session, when the homebuilders make their annual pilgrimage to the Capitol to complain about how the state’s consumer protection laws are killing the construction industry. Just because builders are profiting from record-high demand for apartments does not mean that lawmakers should strip away consumer protections for those who choose to buy new homes.

Firm wins arbitration award for client

Friday, August 2, 2013 @ 03:08 PM
Author: Jesse Witt

The Witt Law Firm is pleased to announce that it won an arbitration award for a client in a construction dispute earlier this week.

The case arose our of a six-figure remodeling job on a single-family home. The dispute began with minor billing discrepancies but escalated when the homeowners learned that the general contractor had not been paying its subcontractors, and that the subcontractors were preparing to pursue mechanics lien claims.

Firm principal Jesse Witt represented the homeowners. He first negotiated a three-way deal to ensure that the subcontractors received payment and released their liens. He then defended the homeowners in an arbitration hearing over the general contractor’s bill. Following this hearing, the arbitrator found that the general contractor’s “credibility during cross-examination was severely lacking,” and that the he had overcharged the homeowners for a number of items. The arbitrator ruled that the contractor was due some additional payment, but he deemed the homeowners to be the prevailing parties and awarded them reasonable attorney fees.

Cases such as this illustrate the importance of keeping accurate records on construction jobs, accounting for all subcontractor funds held in trust, and maintaining good communications between owners and general contractors.

Insuring the risk of construction defects

Wednesday, May 22, 2013 @ 01:05 PM
Author: Jesse Witt

This month, the Denver University Law Review published a new article on construction insurance by Jesse Witt and Marci Achenbach of The Witt Law Firm. Entitled “Insuring the Risk of Construction Defects in Colorado: The Tenth Circuit’s Greystone Decision,” the article reviews the evolution of liability insurance policies in the construction industry and examines how such policies have been interpreted in Colorado. The article explains how the insurance industry intended to provide builders with a means of insuring against the risk that their subcontractors would produce defective work, and it considers what construction defects can arise from an “occurrence” under standard policy language. It concludes with an analysis of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. and recent applications of this holding in state court.

Mr Witt and Ms Achenbach hope that their article will be prove to be a valuable resource for lawyers and other professionals who desire a better understanding of construction insurance. The article appeared in the Law Review’s spring edition as part of its annual survey of significant decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Click here to read the full text.

Senate committee rejects Colorado SB 13-052

Thursday, April 18, 2013 @ 09:04 AM
Author: Jesse Witt

On 17 April 2013, the Colorado Senate’s judiciary committee rejected SB 13-052, which would have severely limited legal protections for homeowner associations located near public transit.
As originally drafted, the bill would have defined any homeowner association within a half mile of a bus or light rail stop as a “Transit-Oriented Development.” Such associations would lose the right to recover any damages in court for building code violations or other negligent construction, and the developers of such communities would gain absolute immunity from claims for environmental hazards or pollution. A last-minute amendment from the bill’s sponsor would have limited the bill’s scope to communities near light rail and removed provisions requiring private arbitration of disputes, but the three Democrats on the committee remained concerned about the lack of data supporting the bill and the risk that it would harm consumers. The committee’s two Republicans voted in favor of the bill.
Jesse Witt of The Witt Law Firm testified on behalf of the Community Associations Institute in opposition to the bill. Mr Witt asserted that, although the proponents of the bill had argued that an insurance crisis was hindering the construction of new homes near public transit, SB 13-052 would do nothing to improve the insurance climate. Instead, the bill would reward the incompetent builders who cut corners, refuse to take care of their customers, and expect their insurance companies to “clean up the mess.” These builders cause insurance premiums to rise for everyone, including the many quality builders in Colorado who take the time to do things right. Making homeowner associations increase their dues to fix negligent builders’ mistakes was not, according to Mr Witt, the right policy for Colorado.
The stakeholders agreed to meet over the summer to discuss other options to encourage new construction and ensure the availability of affordable insurance without unfairly penalizing homeowners. Please check this site or contact The Witt Law Firm for updates on this process.

Colorado SB 13-052 would gut homeowner rights in construction defect disputes

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 @ 12:01 PM
Author: Jesse Witt

The Colorado General Assembly is considering a bill that would gut legal protections for many homeowner associations in the Denver Metro Area. Entitled the “Transit-oriented Development Claims Act of 2013,” the bill claims to encourage the construction of new multi-family communities near light rail stations. In reality, however, the bill would simply make builders immune from legal responsibility for many negligent acts.

Sponsored by Senator Mark Scheffel (R-Douglas), Senator Bill Cadman (R-El Paso), and Representative Brian DelGrosso (R-Larimer), SB 13-052 would create a special procedure to be followed whenever a homeowner or HOA identifies potential construction defects in a “transit-oriented development” project. In any such community, the builder responsible for the defects would have a broad right to enter the property and make whatever repairs the builder felt were appropriate, without approval or consent from the homeowners. If the repairs were inadequate, the homeowners’ only option would be to participate in binding arbitration before a private dispute resolution service; the homeowners’ right to trial by impartial judge or jury would be forfeited. In addition, builders would enjoy complete immunity from any claims for environmental contamination, excess sound transmission, mold, odors, humidity, smoke, or fumes, and builders would have no obligation to repair such problems.

The real catch in this bill, however, is the definition of “transit-oriented development.” The bill does not limit its scope to communities near light rail; instead, the bill comprises all multi-family projects within “within one-half mile of any commuter rail stop, commuter light rail stop, or commuter bus stop.” By including bus stops in this definition, the bill could potentially ensnare hundreds of condominium and townhome communities within the RTD zone, including numerous projects that are nowhere near any light rail lines.

Whether the bill would apply to existing communities or merely affect future construction is unclear. The bill would also amend the statute of limitations and repose to make it easier for builders to sue subcontractors for indemnity.

At The Witt Law Firm, we represent a broad client base of contractors, homeowners, and associations. We support efforts to improve construction law, particularly where such efforts balance the rights of construction professionals and homeowners. Construction professionals should absolutely be able to build quality projects without the fear of litigation, just as homeowners should be able to expect homes that are built in compliance with local codes and industry standards. We do not believe that SB 13-052 would further either of these goals. By shielding builders from liability for their own negligence, this bill would reward those who use cheap materials and unqualified workers, and it would make it harder for honest, competent contractors to stay competitive.

If our legislators want to create incentives for building near light rail, we would encourage them to look at other options besides creating immunity for shoddy construction work. Expanding resources for building code education and stricter contractor licensing standards, for example, could help weed out negligent contractors and thereby reduce overall litigation. Offering special financing to those who build quality homes in designated areas could help draw developers to this market. There are many valid ways to approach this issue without penalizing innocent homeowners. Erecting leaky homes with environmental hazards near our train and bus stops, however, is not the answer.

Update: The Senate Judiciary Committee rejected SB 13-052 on 17 April 2013. Click here for more information.