Velgersdyk v. Thompson Crossing ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>23CA2002 Velgersdyk v Thompson Crossing 10-03-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA2002 </div>
<div>Larimer County District Court No. 22CV30584<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Honorable Stephen J. Jouard, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Michael Velgersdyk and Amanda Velgersdyk, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiffs-Appellants, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thompson Crossing II Association, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellee. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED<span> AND CASE </span>
</div>
<div>REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division II </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE FOX </div>
<div>Johnson and Schock, JJ., concur<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 3, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>March &amp; Olive, LLC, Stewart W. Olive, Fort Collins, Colorado; Poudre Legal </div>
<div>Advisors LLC, Daniel L. Sapienza, Fort Collins, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-</div>
<div>Appellants </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sutton Booker P.C., Joel S. Babcock, Matthew Cecil, Denver, Colorado, for </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellee </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPWI2AOL2X&amp;Expires=1728727445&amp;Signature=c1uMldrKMeYSXE%2Bf7XvjIi68TY4%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEEkaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIEra%2Fe2Bs0EFTQEzLZ2ZNtqiLFuqiku7IVXsohy9BZ%2BbAiEAtBU2%2FIcsrqKrV66zj5pcL0GqhwzQ9vYkKoj2kghqHXoquwUIov%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDMsNpYuUNAnjGFN9iyqPBQKjCh%2F2UiOtnZNriKegM%2B%2B3P37%2BElSQtEllp7mjTaxkJun%2F%2BdI7lKe45EDDTJWJL9YOIANyfnO727vbuGnN7r38LDBIOTMdzsIlcN0eSNtVNJ8SuXdKVkBGN7O4GYEZ2x0yULhKUboxLX98rayJjKfIKKsR8pnEqCaym8cdfbbsUl%2FttnwsWjaUUsVHq86bUFIWCfvwCsnfhSoH2iI9a7rv5sx5tQrRmKQMWqWOsVxxv%2F6FGeiw%2F9VzHfK2CzCRhmcQ1VxBf4dcg1AqyKI4B9tIdCnwuPiRxEYzLZy1w%2BXElE%2F9gjdeyDZQIRvHCjMUE1jQSIDE%2FY2xHENo6ZIMDCjBGk3ruC11cflYZDMF%2FFOYKkhgZXwnpWzjGdvdT0gLg8tqnXZ8SoknnscQKUANVRVUVt7XE7ARpxoMFD9A25BFIDX0jdh1XDnsDm5pSqXsuazcpVYYq5yhA3ML%2FhMG4zmEra0jKOsKVO7Yur5t6VRWJ2ptet9ZskCN7yL%2FyUaAc0rjb7vrrWQd0IownVkau4rehK17v5BEvVnx24miSoD4Qc%2Bd9NL2eBo5IxZNVoXG%2FKhj%2B4jydWVLXuAf0RtJQUgMOdFP0DjxoF7Gkkpvmrxy0lX0K7m7rJlhs0I7Ah8t2xptlv9sk6kdOA8ucp8mfX5JRrG8doN%2BQvXGVTUAfFbyI%2BbBqk7bnpxSFC2rwtrjX9IufEKGccDfOnp8Ert%2BPvE4gM7U5IAjeslD60ng8dI9MPrJJ7rqrBNUAdU4qEnZw27tUUXc8pvfd11l0fabQx%2F6diUJQqpMClFEtjdUgzILz54FLzuojTBDkrpT1%2BQ53WQQ82AUj8mmK5Oid4OjRsAUS9VNvJ36sQvsTUmumqkwku%2BouAY6sQFDPB0N8nptAZMIJ5XdveDK5MAZAabk3yd3AlB9t7tmvBTBE2miUf5v59JtqjpJo4c3RkX8f6C07nsTP5fl8Y6HkQdgF%2Fgin2G1voysi0qD3ugyi37psc5KX%2Bfbum26bZUXrKANhelKJfrKTr0UOJ1p65c7thgHehVly7V0Tz1masxD%2FWHCO23CQYT%2FFfsT9YTbd20haZHJxYmZCF9psK37sc7yjHAaizSGg6Y6DEUheRs%3D"><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Plaintiffs, Michael and Amanda Velgersdyk, appeal portions of </span>
</div>
<div>the district court<span>’</span>s judgment in favor of defendants, Dylan Trembl<span></span>ey </div>
<div>and Voranan V. Karbacka, and defendant-appellee, Thompson </div>
<div>Crossing II Association (the HOA).</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> We affirm the judgment of the </div>
<div>district court<span>. </span> </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>This appeal arises out of a dispute in Johnstown, Colorado, </span>
</div>
<div>between the Velgersdyks<span>, </span>their neighbors Trembley and Karbacka<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>and the<span>ir</span> HOA, over water drainage onto the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> property. </div>
<div>In the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> compl<span>ai</span>nt, they alleg<span>e </span>that Tremble<span>y </span>altere<span></span>d the </div>
<div>grading and drainage pattern of his backyard and relocated the </div>
<div>drainage point for his sump pump, causing significantly <span></span>more water </div>
<div>to enter the Velgersdyks<span>’</span> property. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>The Velgersdyks also alleged the HOA overwatered and failed </span>
</div>
<div>to maintain a grassy swale in the subdivision behind the </div>
<div>Velgersdyks<span>’</span><span> and Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s</span> property<span>, </span>Outlot B<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>which increased groundwater on the property<span>. </span>Finally, they alleged </div>
<div>that the HOA failed to enforce portions of the contract between t<span></span>he </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div><div> Trembley and Karbacka did not file an answer brief. </div></div>
<a href="#pf2" data-dest-detail='[2,"XYZ",69,88,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:385.684444px;bottom:752.010556px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>HOA and homeowners <span>—</span> the <span>“Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>Restrictions, and Easements” (the Declaration)<span> </span><span>—</span><span> prohibiting </span>
</div>
<div>alterations to grading and drainage on homeowner<span>s’</span> properties<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>In August 2022, the Velgersdyks sued Trembley and Karbacka </span>
</div>
<div>for negligence and trespass/nuisance for the alleged grading </div>
<div>alterations and sump pump drainage issues<span>, </span>and for breach of </div>
<div>contract for Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s</span> alleged violations of the </div>
<div>Declaration, requesting damages and a permanent injunction<span>. </span>The </div>
<div>Velgersdyks also<span> </span>sued the HOA <span>for</span><span> </span>negligence and </div>
<div>trespass/nuisance for overwatering Outlot B and for breach of the </div>
<div>Declaration, requesting damages and a permanent injunction. The </div>
<div>district court held a three-day bench trial. </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>To start, there was conflicting testimony about the amount of </span>
</div>
<div>water present in Outlot B. At trial, <span>a </span>landscaping company </div>
<div>manager the HOA had contracted with since 2017, Joseph </div>
<div>Potkanowicz, testified that Outlot B is located directly behind bot<span></span>h </div>
<div>the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> and Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s</span> properties<span>. </span> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>Outlot B is a greenway area running between two sets of </span>
</div>
<div>homes <span>that created a “natural drainage swale” —</span> <span>a </span>shallow grassy </div>
<div>ditch <span>—</span> that collect<span>ed</span> water <span>to</span> direct it to a nearby street<span>. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>Potkanowicz testified that he was aware of several complaints in </div>
<div>2017 and 2018 about standing water in Outlo<span>t B</span>, which resulted in </div>
<div>temporarily halting irrigation to the area. Potkanowicz<span> </span>testified that </div>
<div>by 2019, once the grass and landscaping in Outlot B became m<span></span>ore </div>
<div>established, the issue was resolved.<span> </span>According to<span> </span>Potkanowicz, he </div>
<div>never saw evidence of water leaving Outlot B onto any resi<span></span>dent<span>’</span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>property. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>Michael<span> </span><span>Velgersdyk testified, however, that the area was often </span></span>
</div>
<div>“mushy” <span>and standing water was consistently present.<span> </span>Conversely,<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>Dylan<span> <span>Trembley testified that Outlot B had not had standing wate<span></span>r </span></span>
</div>
<div>issues since 2018. Michael Velgersdyk conceded that after the HOA </div>
<div>reduced its watering of Outlot B, his <span>sump pump ran “about 5<span></span>0% </span>
</div>
<div>less” than before. A defense expert, James Whipple, testified <span></span>that </div>
<div>the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> sump pump likely ran so often because their home </div>
<div>was too close to the groundwater table below. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>There was also conflicting testimony about the alleged changes </span>
</div>
<div>to Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span><span>grading</span><span>. T</span>he district court asked </div>
<div>Michael Velgersdyk what specific changes he believed occurre<span></span>d to </div>
<div>Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s</span> grading, and Velgersdyk said he believed </div>
<div>Trembley “flattened” his yard, which caused “probably 75<span></span>%” of the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>water that entered Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s</span> backyard to flow </div>
<div>directly onto his property, rather than draining to the pr<span></span>operties on </div>
<div>each side of Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s</span> yard equally. Dylan </div>
<div>Trembley testified that he never altered the grade or drainage <span></span>on his </div>
<div>property, however, save for relocating his sump pump d<span></span>rainpipe to </div>
<div>the lot line with the Velgersdyks<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>The <span>Velgersdyks’</span> expert Dennis Messner <span>—</span> <span>admitted as “an </span></span>
</div>
<div>expert in civil engineering with expertise related to grading,<span></span> </div>
<div>drainage and groundwater issues”<span> </span><span>—</span><span> testified that the biggest </span>
</div>
<div>change he could see to Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>property that </div>
<div>might affect its drainage patterns was the placement of rocks t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>created a path for water to drain onto the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> property<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>The rocks also created a rock berm facing Outlot B that <span></span>would </div>
<div>direct water into the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> property. But Messner co<span></span>uld not </div>
<div>tell if Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>yard had been flattened or raised </div>
<div>and noted<span>, </span>when examining the property<span>’s original “spot elevation </span>
</div>
<div>exhibit,”<span> that <span>“the flow adjacent to the patio is fairly c<span></span>onsistent with </span></span>
</div>
<div>what was [there] <span>originally.” Whipple testified that, based </span><span>on</span> <span></span>his </div>
<div>observation of the property, the grading on Trembley and </div>
<div>Karbacka’s <span>property had not been changed. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>As <span>for</span> the relocation of Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>sump pump </span>
</div>
<div>drainage<span>, <span>the Velgersdyks introduced several photos indicating that<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>a sump pump drainpipe at their shared fence line was draining <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>significant amount of water onto their property.<span> </span>Mitigating this </div>
<div>additional water from the sump pump drain required building <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>trench and installing a new drainage system<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Dylan<span> <span>Trembley testified that he never told the HOA about<span></span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>moving his sump pump drainpipe, request<span>ed</span> approval to do s<span></span>o, or </div>
<div>spoke with Kellison Corp. (Kellison), the HOA<span>’</span>s property </div>
<div>management company, about the matter. Jeremy Woods, an HO<span></span>A </div>
<div>manager with Kellison, testified that he was never told about t<span></span>he </div>
<div>repositioning of Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>sump pump drain. An </div>
<div>HOA board member who lived across the street from the </div>
<div>Velgersdyks testified that he regularly <span>saw</span> water on the sidewalk </div>
<div>outside the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> house, and knew it was from a sump </div>
<div>pump, but <span>he</span> did not specify whether he was aware that Trembley </div>
<div>had relocat<span>ed</span> his drainage pipe. </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>After trial concluded, the district court issued its findings of </span>
</div>
<div>fact and conclusions of law. The court found that the Velgers<span></span>dyks </div>
<div>had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence t<span></span>hat the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>HOA<span>’</span><span>s <span>overwatering of Outlot B had contributed to the incre<span></span>ase in </span></span>
</div>
<div>groundwater under their property. As to the alleged regra<span></span>ding of </div>
<div>Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>property, the court found that the </div>
<div>Velgersdyks had failed to prove by a preponderance of t<span></span>he evidence </div>
<div>that Trembley<span>’</span>s landscaping had altered drainage patterns <span>on</span> his </div>
<div>property. However, the court found that the sump pump drain </div>
<div>relocation caused the <span>Vel</span>gersdyks damages because it require<span></span>d the </div>
<div>installation of the new drainage system, resulting in $6,18<span></span>5.66 of </div>
<div>costs <span>—</span> though the evidence did not show the HOA was aware of </div>
<div>Trembley<span>’</span><span>s actions<span>. </span><span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>The court next reached three conclusions of law. First, as to </span>
</div>
<div>the negligence claims against the HOA and Trembley and Karbacka<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>it concluded that the Velgersdyks failed to prove that the <span></span>HOA </div>
<div>breached a duty to maintain Outlot B, but that Tremble<span>y </span>and </div>
<div>Karbacka committed negligence and breached a legal duty that </div>
<div>caused damages by relocating their sump pump drainage.<span> </span>Second, </div>
<div>for trespass and nuisance, the court ruled that the Velgersdyks </div>
<div>failed to prove that the HOA<span>’</span>s actions constituted a nuisanc<span></span>e or </div>
<div>trespass that caused any damages, but it ruled that the </div>
<div>Velgersdyks established the claim for trespass and nuisance again<span></span>st </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>Trembley and Karbacka for their sump pump relocation<span>. <span> </span></span>And third, </div>
<div>for the breach of contract claims the court decided that the </div>
<div>Velgersdyks failed to prove that the HOA breached the Declaration </div>
<div>by overwatering Outlot B and, because it was not informed of </div>
<div>Trembley and Karbacka<span>’s</span> sump pump drain relocation<span>, </span>the HOA did </div>
<div>not permit a nuisance. The court also found that Trembley and </div>
<div>Karbacka had not altered the grading or drainage on their property </div>
<div>and had not breached the Declaration. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>As a result, the court entered judgment in favor of the HOA </span>
</div>
<div>and Trembley and Karbacka for every claim, save for the negli<span></span>gence, </div>
<div>trespass, and nuisance claims against Trembley and Karbacka <span>for</span> </div>
<div>relocating the sump pump drain, and ordered Tremble<span>y </span>and </div>
<div>Karbacka to pay the Velgersdyks $6,185.66 in damages. The </div>
<div>district court declined to order injunctive relief. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>The Velgersdyks and the HOA moved to recover attorney fees </span>
</div>
<div>and costs, with the Velgersdyks requesting $11,623.97<span> </span>and the </div>
<div>HOA requesting $80,893.11 ($59,388.50 in attorney fees and </div>
<div>$21,594.61 in costs)<span>. </span>The district court found that some of the </div>
<div>HOA<span>’</span><span>s <span>requested attorney fees were not reasonably necessa<span></span>ry for </span></span>
</div>
<div>the disposition of the case and excluded them (and some costs)<span>. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>But<span> because the HOA<span>’</span>s requested attorney fees were reasonabl<span></span>e </span>
</div>
<div>overall and the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> <span>claims were “essentially </span>based up<span></span>on </div>
<div>the same set of operative facts to establish liability<span>” </span>and could not </div>
<div>be apportioned, <span>it</span> granted the HOA $56,674.99 in attorney fee<span></span>s and </div>
<div>$19,299.19 in costs for a total award of $75,974.18<span>. </span> The district </div>
<div>court denied the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> request. The Velgersdyks filed this </div>
<div>appeal<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Issues Raised on Appeal </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>On appeal the Velgersdyks raise three issues, arguing that<span></span> the </span>
</div>
<div>district court erred by (1) failing to address whether Trem<span></span>bley and </div>
<div>Karbacka had breached the Declaration by creating a nuisance an<span></span>d </div>
<div>finding that they had not breached the Declaration prohibiting </div>
<div>drainage pattern alterations despite having relocated their sump </div>
<div>pump drain; (2) excluding, for lack of foundation, a stamped drone </div>
<div>survey report relied upon by the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> expert; and<span> </span>(3) failing </div>
<div>to find the HOA liable for breach of the Declaration for not </div>
<div>remedying a nuisance on the grounds that the HOA did not <span></span>know </div>
<div>about the sump pump drainage relocation. Alternatively, the </div>
<div>Velgersdyks argue that the district court erred by awarding the </div>
<div>HOA attorney fees and costs without apportioning the fees by claim<span>. </span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Analysis </span></span>
</div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Breach of Contract Claims </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>The Velgersdyks first argue that the district court erred by not </span>
</div>
<div>finding that Trembley and Karbacka breached the Declaration <span>by</span> </div>
<div>maintaining a nuisance and altering their property<span>’</span>s drainage </div>
<div>patterns. <span> </span>The Velgersdyks contend that because the district court </div>
<div>found that Trembley and Karbacka had committed a trespass <span>or </span>
</div>
<div>nuisance by relocating the sump pump drainage<span>, </span>Trembley and </div>
<div>Karbacka necessarily violated Declaration section 8.23<span>’</span>s pr<span></span>ohibition </div>
<div>on maintaining nuisances and that the district court erred by n<span></span>ot </div>
<div>addressing this issue.<span> </span>The Velgersdyks also argue that the district </div>
<div>court interpreted Declaration section 8.24<span>’</span>s prohibition on grading </div>
<div>and drainage alterations too narrowly in finding that Trembley and </div>
<div>Karbacka <span>ha</span>d not committed a breach because they had not </div>
<div>modified <span>“</span>the topography or contour of any drainage area in </div>
<div>completing [their] landscape plan.<span>”</span><span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>The HOA, in turn, contends that the Velgersdyks did not </span>
</div>
<div>preserve the issue of whether Trembley and Karbacka breached </div>
<div>section 8.23 because the Velgersdyks did not raise it in their </div>
<div>complaint or their proposed findings of fact and conclusions <span></span>of law. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>As to section 8.24, the HOA argues that the district court<span>’</span>s factual </div>
<div>findings have record support and merit deference, and regardless, </div>
<div>the HOA did not breach the Declaration. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>1.<span> <span>Section 8.23 </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>The Declaration<span>’</span>s prohibition of nuisances in section 8.23 </span>
</div>
<div>provides: </div>
<div>No obnoxious or offensive activity shall be </div>
<div>carried on upon any Lot or the Common Area, </div>
<div>nor shall anything be done thereon which may </div>
<div>be, or may become, an annoyance or nuisance </div>
<div>to any other Owner. Nothing contained herein </div>
<div>shall be construed as prohibiting or restricting </div>
<div>construction activities by Declarant at any </div>
<div>time, seven (7) days per week. </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>To start, the Velgersdyks did not sufficiently raise the </span>
</div>
<div>argument that Trembley and Karbacka breached section 8.23 wit<span></span>h </div>
<div>the district court; thus, this issue is <span>un</span>preserved. <span>See Gebert<span></span> v. </span>
</div>
<div>Sears, Roebuck &amp; Co.<span>, 2023 COA 107, ¶ 25. The complaint only </span>
</div>
<div>references section 8.23 in the “facts and allegations” section, <span></span>noting </div>
<div>“<span>Section 8.23 of the Declaration provides that no owner may do </span>
</div>
<div>anything on their property which may be, or may become, an </div>
<div>annoyance or nuisance to any other owner.<span>” But </span>the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> </div>
<div>breach of contract claim against Trembley and Karbacka only </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPWI2AOL2X&amp;Expires=1728727445&amp;Signature=c1uMldrKMeYSXE%2Bf7XvjIi68TY4%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEEkaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIEra%2Fe2Bs0EFTQEzLZ2ZNtqiLFuqiku7IVXsohy9BZ%2BbAiEAtBU2%2FIcsrqKrV66zj5pcL0GqhwzQ9vYkKoj2kghqHXoquwUIov%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDMsNpYuUNAnjGFN9iyqPBQKjCh%2F2UiOtnZNriKegM%2B%2B3P37%2BElSQtEllp7mjTaxkJun%2F%2BdI7lKe45EDDTJWJL9YOIANyfnO727vbuGnN7r38LDBIOTMdzsIlcN0eSNtVNJ8SuXdKVkBGN7O4GYEZ2x0yULhKUboxLX98rayJjKfIKKsR8pnEqCaym8cdfbbsUl%2FttnwsWjaUUsVHq86bUFIWCfvwCsnfhSoH2iI9a7rv5sx5tQrRmKQMWqWOsVxxv%2F6FGeiw%2F9VzHfK2CzCRhmcQ1VxBf4dcg1AqyKI4B9tIdCnwuPiRxEYzLZy1w%2BXElE%2F9gjdeyDZQIRvHCjMUE1jQSIDE%2FY2xHENo6ZIMDCjBGk3ruC11cflYZDMF%2FFOYKkhgZXwnpWzjGdvdT0gLg8tqnXZ8SoknnscQKUANVRVUVt7XE7ARpxoMFD9A25BFIDX0jdh1XDnsDm5pSqXsuazcpVYYq5yhA3ML%2FhMG4zmEra0jKOsKVO7Yur5t6VRWJ2ptet9ZskCN7yL%2FyUaAc0rjb7vrrWQd0IownVkau4rehK17v5BEvVnx24miSoD4Qc%2Bd9NL2eBo5IxZNVoXG%2FKhj%2B4jydWVLXuAf0RtJQUgMOdFP0DjxoF7Gkkpvmrxy0lX0K7m7rJlhs0I7Ah8t2xptlv9sk6kdOA8ucp8mfX5JRrG8doN%2BQvXGVTUAfFbyI%2BbBqk7bnpxSFC2rwtrjX9IufEKGccDfOnp8Ert%2BPvE4gM7U5IAjeslD60ng8dI9MPrJJ7rqrBNUAdU4qEnZw27tUUXc8pvfd11l0fabQx%2F6diUJQqpMClFEtjdUgzILz54FLzuojTBDkrpT1%2BQ53WQQ82AUj8mmK5Oid4OjRsAUS9VNvJ36sQvsTUmumqkwku%2BouAY6sQFDPB0N8nptAZMIJ5XdveDK5MAZAabk3yd3AlB9t7tmvBTBE2miUf5v59JtqjpJo4c3RkX8f6C07nsTP5fl8Y6HkQdgF%2Fgin2G1voysi0qD3ugyi37psc5KX%2Bfbum26bZUXrKANhelKJfrKTr0UOJ1p65c7thgHehVly7V0Tz1masxD%2FWHCO23CQYT%2FFfsT9YTbd20haZHJxYmZCF9psK37sc7yjHAaizSGg6Y6DEUheRs%3D"><div>
<div>11 </div>
<div>mentions section 8.24 and <span>alleges that Trembley “breached the </span>
</div>
<div>terms of the Declaration by altering the grading and <span></span>drainage areas </div>
<div>of [the] property without first obtaining permission f<span></span>rom the Design </div>
<div>Review Committee of the Association.” <span>And in the </span><span>Velgersdyks’</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>proposed and rebuttal findings of fact and conclusions of law, </div>
<div>submitted after trial, section 8.23 is never mentioned in connecti<span></span>on </div>
<div>with the breach of contract claims. Oddly, section 8.23 is </div>
<div>mentioned in the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> trial brief on breach of contract but </div>
<div>section 8.24 is not.</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>But again, the trial brief does no more than </span>
</div>
<div>paraphrase section 8.23 without alleging that Trembley and </div>
<div>Karbacka breached that provision.<span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>The district court was aware of section 8.23 and the </span>
</div>
<div>Velgersdyks cited it intermittently, but section 8.23 was not offered </div>
<div>as a <span>ground for the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> breach of contract claims in <span></span>the </span>
</div>
<div>two critical documents <span>—</span> the complaint and proposed findings of<span></span> </div>
<div>fact and conclusions of law <span>—</span> while section 8.24 was. <span></span>Thus, the </div>
<div>district court was not fully presented with the sum and s<span></span>ubstance </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> The stipulated facts of the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> proposed trial </div>
<div>management orders quote section 8.24 in its entirety but repeat <span></span>the </div>
<div>same language concerning section 8.23 from the complaint. <span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pfc" data-dest-detail='[12,"XYZ",69,121,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:256.194444px;bottom:542.033333px;width:10.080000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfd" data-page-no="d">
<div><div>
<div>12 </div>
<div>of the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> argument under section 8.23, and we <span></span>may not </div>
<div>address this argument for the first time on appeal. <span>See Gebert</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>¶ <span>25</span><span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>Even had this issue been preserved, however, any error would </span>
</div>
<div>have been harmless because the outcome would have been the </div>
<div>same regardless<span>. </span><span>See </span>C.R.C.P. 61. The district court had already </div>
<div>awarded the Velgersdyks $6,185.66 in damages to compensate </div>
<div>them for the trespass or nuisance and the costs of installing a new </div>
<div>drainage system after Trembley relocated the sump pump drain<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> <span>“<span>The measure of damages in a breach of contract action is t<span></span>he </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>amount it takes to place the plaintiff in the position it would ha<span></span>ve </div>
<div>occupied had the breach not occurred.<span>” <span>Technics, LLC v. Acoust<span></span>ic </span></span>
</div>
<div>Mktg. Rsch. Inc.<span>, 179 P.3d 123, 126 (Colo. App. 200<span></span>7), <span>aff<span>’</span><span>d</span></span>, 198 </span>
</div>
<div>P.3d 96 (Colo. 2008)<span>. </span>Even assuming a breach did occur, the </div>
<div>damages awarded on the other claims placed the Velgersdyks in the </div>
<div>same position they would have been in had the breach not </div>
<div>occurred, and they may not receive duplicative damages for </div>
<div>Trembley<span>’s <span>actions. <span>See Schuessler v. Wolter</span>, 2012 COA 86, ¶ 63 </span></span>
</div>
<div>(“A plaintiff generally may not receive a double recovery fo<span></span>r the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfe" data-page-no="e">
<div><div>
<div>13 </div>
<div>same wrong.”). <span>Thus, any presumed error in this matter </span><span>—</span><span> even if </span>
</div>
<div>preserved <span>—</span> would be harmless. </div>
<div>2.<span> <span>Section 8.24 </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> </span><span>The district court found that Trembley and Karbacka did not </span>
</div>
<div>breach section 8.24<span>, titled “Drainage and Irrigation,”</span> because they </div>
<div>did <span>not alter the “topography </span>or contour of any drainage area<span>”</span> on </div>
<div>their property.<span> </span>The Velgersdyks contend that by relocating the </div>
<div>sump pump drainage, however, Trembley modified the “drainag<span></span>e </div>
<div>pattern” on <span>Trembley </span>and Karbacka’s <span>land, and that the </span>
</div>
<div>Declaration, when read as a whole, implies that section 8.24 </div>
<div>prohibits more than topographical changes. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>Section 8.24 provides: </span>
</div>
<div>No Owner shall modify or change the </div>
<div>topography or contour of any drainage areas or </div>
<div>easements, including swales, constructed on </div>
<div>the Lots and other portions of the Property </div>
<div>from the shape and outline established by the </div>
<div>Declarant or Persons or entities acting on </div>
<div>behalf of the Declarant; provided, however, </div>
<div>than [sic] an Owner shall be permitted to </div>
<div>modify the drainage areas on his or her Lot </div>
<div>upon receiving written approval therefore from </div>
<div>the DRC. Any Owner who in any way </div>
<div>materially modifies the drainage pattern on the </div>
<div>land without such consent shall be subject to </div>
<div>sanctions contained herein for violations of </div>
<div>this Declaration.<span> </span> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div><div>
<div>14 </div>
<div>The Velgersdyks contend the final sentence <span>—</span> along with <span></span>the </div>
<div>Declaration<span>’</span><span>s general purpose </span><span>—</span><span> prohibits actions like moving <span></span>a </span>
</div>
<div>sump pump drain. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>We review covenants and recorded instruments de novo and </span>
</div>
<div>interpret them in their entirety, not by looking at particular cla<span></span>uses </div>
<div>in isolation, in an effort to ensure that all provisions are giv<span></span>en effect </div>
<div>and none are rendered meaningless. <span>FD Ints., LLC v. Fairways<span></span> at </span>
</div>
<div>Buffalo Run Homeowners Ass<span>’</span><span>n</span><span>, 2019 COA 148, ¶ 23. We wi<span></span>ll </span>
</div>
<div>enforce recorded instruments as they are written and give t<span></span>heir </div>
<div>words and phrases their common meanings if the instrument is </div>
<div>clear, with any ambiguities strictly construed against the drafter. <span></span> </div>
<div>Id. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 27<span> </span><span>We agree with the district court that section 8.24 concern<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>modifications of topography and the contours of the land, and <span></span>does </div>
<div>not encompass actions like relocating a sump pump drain. The </div>
<div>first sentence of section 8.24 clearly details what it prohibits <span>—</span> </div>
<div>modifications or changes to the “topography or contour of <span></span>any </div>
<div>drainage areas or easements, including swales, constructed on t<span></span>he </div>
<div>Lots and other portions of the Property.” <span> It then provides an </span>
</div>
<div>exception in the latter half of the sentence (if a homeowner gets </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf10" data-page-no="10">
<div><div>
<div>15 </div>
<div>written approval to make such a change), and then in the final </div>
<div>sentence it details that, unless an owner obtains this approval, an </div>
<div>owner is subject to sanctions. </div>
<div>¶ 28<span> </span><span>The final sentence does not change or expand the scope of </span>
</div>
<div>section 8.24<span>. I</span><span>ts reference to a “drainage pattern” is merely a </span>
</div>
<div>catchall for the prohibited topographical changes explicitly </div>
<div>mentioned in the first sentence. This is further evidenced by t<span></span>he </div>
<div>final sentence<span>’</span>s reference to the consent exception in the prior </div>
<div>sentence. It would be illogical for the final sentence to, in <span></span>effect, </div>
<div>add a new type of prohibited action different to or broader than </div>
<div>what the prior sentence detailed while still referencing the same </div>
<div>consent exception from the prior sentence<span>. </span><span>See EnCana Oil &amp; Ga<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>(USA), Inc. v. Miller<span>, 2017 COA 112, ¶ 28 (contracts must not be </span>
</div>
<div>interpreted in a manner that leads to an absurd result); <span>see a<span></span>lso<span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>Ringquist v. Wall Custom Homes, LLC<span>, 176 P.3d 846, 849 (<span></span>Colo. </span>
</div>
<div>App. 2007) (contracts must be given effect as written, unless t<span></span>hey </div>
<div>are voidable or “the result would be an absurdity”). <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 29<span> </span><span>The plain and common meaning of the terms in section 8.24 </span>
</div>
<div>supports the interpretation that section 8.24 is concerned wi<span></span>th </div>
<div>topographical changes only<span>, </span>and such an interpretation does not </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div><div>
<div>16 </div>
<div>undermine the general purpose of the Declaration or render any </div>
<div>other provision meaningless. <span>See FD Ints.</span><span>, ¶</span> 23. Indeed, this </div>
<div>interpretation helps give effect to the broader scope of <span></span>section 8.23 </div>
<div>and its prohibition on nuisances generally<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 30<span> </span><span>Therefore, the district court did not err by finding that </span>
</div>
<div>Trembley did not violate section 8.24 by moving the sump pump </div>
<div>drain, because that section exclusively concerns topographical an<span></span>d </div>
<div>contour changes. <span>See id.</span> </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>Exclusion of the Drone Survey </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 31<span> </span><span>Next, the Velgersdyks argue that the district court erred by </span>
</div>
<div>excluding, for lack of foundation, <span>a <span>“</span></span><span>stamped<span>”</span></span> land survey of </div>
<div>Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>property taken via drone from evidence<span>. </span> </div>
<div>1.<span> <span>Additional Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 32<span> </span><span>The Velgersdyks sought to introduce the drone survey because </span>
</div>
<div>their expert, Messner, relied on it in trial preparation to compare </div>
<div>Trem<span>bley and Karbacka’s current property<span> with the grading records </span></span>
</div>
<div>and <span>to</span> detect changes. The HOA objected, arguing that the report </div>
<div>lacked foundation and was hearsay. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 33<span> </span><span>While counsel tried to lay additional foundation, Messner </span>
</div>
<div>testified that he did not conduct the survey himself. Instead, he </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf12" data-page-no="12">
<div><div>
<div>17 </div>
<div>requested the drone survey because he was unable to provide </div>
<div>surveyors access to Trembley a<span>nd Karbacka’s</span> property. Messner </div>
<div>did not observe the survey being conducted<span>, </span>did not know more </div>
<div>about drone surveys than a “normal person,” had not worke<span></span>d with </div>
<div>drone surveys personally, and was unfamiliar with the soft<span></span>ware </div>
<div>used by the surveyor<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 34<span> </span><span>The Velgersdyks chiefly argued that the survey should be </span>
</div>
<div>admitted as it was prepared by a land surveyor at the direction of <span></span>a </div>
<div>professional engineer (Messner), while the HOA argued that<span></span> the </div>
<div>report lacked reliability. The HOA noted that “<span>[w]e<span>’</span><span>ve seen no </span></span>
</div>
<div>indication that it is reliable in this case. No testimony to margin of </div>
<div>error. No testimony to the type of drone used.” The district <span></span>court </div>
<div>sustained the objection and refused to admit the drone survey<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 35<span> </span><span>The next day the Velgersdyks asked the court to reconsider, </span>
</div>
<div>arguing that the drone report was a “stamped and certified s<span></span>urvey” </div>
<div>by a certified land surveyor<span>. </span>Thus, the Velgersdyks argued, CRE </div>
<div>703 and two cases (a Colorado Court of Appeals case and <span></span>the </div>
<div>Colorado Supreme Court case that overruled it on other gr<span></span>ounds) <span>—</span> </div>
<div>Hamilton Enterprises, Ltd. v. South Park Land &amp; Livestock Co<span></span>.<span>, 527 </span>
</div>
<div>P.2d 886, 889 (Colo. App. 1974), and <span>South Park Land &amp; Livest<span></span>ock </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf13" data-page-no="13">
<div><div>
<div>18 </div>
<div>Co. v. Hamilton Enterprises, Ltd.<span>, 538 P.2d 444 (Colo. 1975) <span>—</span> </span>
</div>
<div>supported its admission. The district court reiterat<span></span>ed that “the </div>
<div>basis of [the court<span>’</span>s] ruling was that there was not a foundation </div>
<div>that the survey was reasonably reliable from the witness.” <span>The </span>
</div>
<div>Velgersdyks attempted to lay more foundation, with Messner </div>
<div>testifying that it was common for civil engineers to rely on sta<span></span>mped </div>
<div>land surveys as the stamp indicates reliability. The HOA renewed </div>
<div>its objection, noting that simply because a survey was stamped di<span></span>d </div>
<div>not render it admissible. The court again refused to admit the </div>
<div>drone survey<span>. </span> </div>
<div>2.<span> <span>CRE 703 and the Stamped Survey </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 36<span> <span>“Under CRE 402, all relevant evidence is admissible, except as </span></span>
</div>
<div>provided by constitution, rule, or statute, and irrelevant<span></span> evidence is </div>
<div>not admissible.” <span>People v. Ramirez<span>, 155 P.3d 371, 378 (Colo. <span></span>2007). </span></span>
</div>
<div>And <span>while relevant evidence is broadly admissible, “CRE 7<span></span>02 and </span>
</div>
<div>CRE 403 temper that broad admissibility by giving cou<span></span>rts discretion </div>
<div>to exclude expert testimony if it is unreliable, [or] irrelevant.<span>” </span><span> </span><span>I<span></span>d<span>. </span></span>
</div>
<div>And a district court may exclude evidence if <span>“</span>its probative value is </div>
<div>substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, </div>
<div>confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consi<span></span>derations </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf14" data-page-no="14">
<div><div>
<div>19 </div>
<div>of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation <span></span>of </div>
<div>cumulative evidence<span>.” </span> CRE 403.<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 37<span> <span>“We review a trial court’<span>s determination of the admissibility of </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>evidence, including expert testimony, for an abuse of discreti<span></span>on and </div>
<div>review its application of a legal standard de novo.” <span>Bocia<span></span>n v. </span>
</div>
<div>Owners Ins. Co.<span>, 2020 COA 98, ¶ 63. The district court is granted </span>
</div>
<div>broad discretion over the admissibility of expert testimony, and we </div>
<div>will not overturn its decision unless it was “manifestly erroneous.” </div>
<div>Id. <span>at ¶ 64;</span> see also<span> </span>People v. Huehn<span>, 53 P.3d 733, 736 (Colo. A<span></span>pp. </span>
</div>
<div>2002) (“Whether a proper foundation has been established is a </div>
<div>matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose d<span></span>ecision </div>
<div>will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”). <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 38<span> <span>“Under CRE 703, experts may testify as to facts and data that<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>are not otherwise admissible in evidence if the facts and d<span></span>ata </div>
<div>formed the basis of the expert<span>’</span>s opinion and are of the type </div>
<div>reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.” <span>People in Interest<span></span> of </span>
</div>
<div>M.M.<span>, 215 P.3d 1237, 1250 (Colo. App. 2009); <span>see also Quinta<span></span>na v. </span></span>
</div>
<div>City of Westminster<span>, 56 P.3d 1193, 1199 (Colo. App. 20<span></span>02)<span>. </span><span> <span>“CRE </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>703 does not permit otherwise inadmissible facts or <span></span>data to be </div>
<div>presented to the [fact finder] merely because the expert relied on </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf15" data-page-no="15">
<div><div>
<div>20 </div>
<div>them. . . . [I]f the facts and data are admitted, they are admi<span></span>ssible </div>
<div>only to explain the witness<span>’</span>s opinion, not for the truth of <span></span>the matter </div>
<div>asserted.<span>”</span><span> People v. Vigil<span>, 2024 COA 72, ¶ 18. </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 39<span> </span><span>The district court exclud<span>ed</span> the drone survey because it lacke<span></span>d </span>
</div>
<div>adequate foundation and the HOA challenged its reliability.<span> </span>As a </div>
<div>result, <span>because “</span>the underlying basis for the expert opinions <span></span>and </div>
<div>recommendations [was] not accepted as reliable by the court<span>[]</span>, the </div>
<div>expert<span>’</span><span>s testimony itself [was] inadmissible.<span>”</span> <span>M.M.</span>, 215 P.<span></span>3d at </span>
</div>
<div>1250. </div>
<div>¶ 40<span> <span>“<span>When determining whether expert testimony is reliable, the </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>trial court <span>‘</span>should apply a liberal standard that only req<span></span>uires proof </div>
<div>that the underlying scientific principles are reasonably <span></span>reliable.<span>’</span><span> </span>In </div>
<div>doing so, the court must consider the totality of the circum<span></span>stances </div>
<div>and is not confined to any specific list of factors.” <span>Bocia<span></span>n<span>, <span>¶ <span>66 </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>(quoting <span>Kutzly v. People</span>, 2019 CO 55, ¶ 12).<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 41<span> </span><span>Here, the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> primary argument for the reliability of </span>
</div>
<div>the drone survey report was that it was a “stamped and ce<span></span>rtified </div>
<div>survey” prepared by a <span>land surveyor. The Velgersdyks primarily </span>
</div>
<div>point to <span>South Park Land</span>, 538 P.2d 444, as support for the </div>
<div>proposition that a certified survey is inherently reliable. The<span></span>re, the </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf16" data-page-no="16">
<div><div>
<div>21 </div>
<div>Colorado Supreme Court addressed the propriety of <span>a </span>discharg<span></span>ed </div>
<div>land surveying company<span>’</span>s revocation of its certification for all </div>
<div>survey work completed in a project<span>, </span>along with its filing of <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>mechanic<span>’</span><span>s lien on the remaining unpaid contract balance, once it<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>found out that some of the survey work had been modified<span>. </span><span>Id. </span>at </div>
<div>444-<span>45<span>. <span> The supreme court held that the revocation was an </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>improper remedy given that the statutory regime already p<span></span>rovided </div>
<div>penalties for wrongful alterations of survey work. <span>Id. </span>at 445<span>. </span>In </div>
<div>reaching this conclusion, the supreme court noted that “<span>[s]urveyors </span>
</div>
<div>are licensed to protect the public from unqualified work. The </div>
<div>required seal certifies expertise. It also acknowledges the survey<span></span>or<span>’</span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>responsibility to protect the public for any mistakes or negli<span></span>gence in </div>
<div>the survey which bears the seal.<span>” </span><span> </span><span>Id. </span>(citations omitted).<span> </span>The </div>
<div>statutory regime governing land surveyors in sections <span>12<span>-<span>120</span></span></span>-301 </div>
<div>through -<span>316</span>, C.R.S. 2024, does not undermine these propositions.<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 42<span> </span><span>But <span>South Park Land</span> never specifically addressed whether land </span>
</div>
<div>surveys were inherently reliable for purposes of CRE 702 and <span></span>703<span>. </span> </div>
<div>Had the Velgersdyks brought <span>the survey’s creator, </span>Michael J. </div>
<div>Dedecker,<span> </span><span>to lay a proper foundation, t<span>he</span> district court</span><span>’</span><span>s ruling </span>
</div>
<div>might well have been different. But the Velgersdyks only called </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf17" data-page-no="17">
<div><div>
<div>22 </div>
<div>Messner, who testified that it was common for civil enginee<span></span>rs to rely </div>
<div>on stamped land surveys and could not specify if there were any </div>
<div>differing practices for traditional surveys and aerial surveys. <span></span> </div>
<div>Messner also testified that he (1) had not observed the survey <span></span>being </div>
<div>conducted; (2) was no more familiar with drone surveys t<span></span>han a lay </div>
<div>person; <span>and (3) had not “worked wi</span><span>th<span>”</span></span> drone surveys personally. As </div>
<div>a result, Messner could not speak to the reliability of t<span></span>he drone </div>
<div>survey <span>or</span> the methodology behind its preparation<span>. </span> </div>
<div>¶ 43<span> </span><span>The record supports the district court<span>’</span>s determination that </span>
</div>
<div>there was insufficient foundation to admit the drone survey<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court<span>’</span>s decision was </div>
<div>manifestly erroneous. <span>See Bocian</span>, ¶ 63. </div>
<div>C.<span> <span>HOA Breach of Contract Claim </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 44<span> </span><span>The Velgersdyks next argue that the district court erred by </span>
</div>
<div>failing to find that the HOA breached the Declaration by not </div>
<div>enforcing section 8.23 and allowing Trembley and Karbacka to </div>
<div>maintain a nuisance when they moved their sump pump drainage. <span></span> </div>
<div>The district court found that the HOA “was not infor<span></span>med of the </div>
<div>decision by Defendants Trembley and Karbacka to move their s<span></span>ump </div>
<div>pump discharge, did not authorize the same, and [the HO<span></span>A] did not </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf18" data-page-no="18">
<div><div>
<div>23 </div>
<div>breach the terms of the Declaration by permitting a n<span></span>uisance under </div>
<div>Section 8.23 of the Declaration.” <span>The Velgersdyks contend that </span>
</div>
<div>there is “substantial evidence,” however, that the HOA knew a<span></span>bout </div>
<div>the drainage relocation and failed to act <span>—</span> though the<span>ir</span> contentions </div>
<div>lack citations to specific parts of the record for support<span>. </span><span>See </span>C.A.R. </div>
<div>28(a)(7)(B) (an appellant<span>’</span>s brief must include citations to the parts </div>
<div>of the record on which the appellant relies). </div>
<div>¶ 45<span> </span><span>We review the district court<span>’</span>s factual determination that the </span>
</div>
<div>HOA did not know of the nuisance for clear error and must defer t<span></span>o </div>
<div>it<span> unless it has no support in the record. <span>Shekarchian v. Ma<span></span>xx Auto </span></span>
</div>
<div>Recovery, Inc.<span>, 2019 COA 60, ¶ 28 (“Where, as here, the <span></span>district </span>
</div>
<div>court acts as the factfinder, we defer to its credibility </div>
<div>determinations and will not disturb its findings of fact unless t<span></span>hey </div>
<div>are clearly erroneous <span>—</span> <span>that is, lack any support in the record.”</span><span>).</span><span> </span>It </div>
<div>is not our role to reweigh conflicting evidence. <span>See IBC Denver II<span></span>, </span>
</div>
<div>LLC v. City of Wheat Ridge<span>, 183 P.3d 714, 719 (Colo. App. 2<span></span>008). </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 46<span> </span><span>The record support<span>s </span>the finding that the HOA was <span>un</span>aware </span>
</div>
<div>that Trembley relocated his sump pump drain<span>. <span>He</span></span> testified that he </div>
<div>never told the HOA about moving his sump pump drainpi<span></span>pe, did </div>
<div>not request approval, and did not notify Kellison about the change<span>. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf19" data-page-no="19">
<div><div>
<div>24 </div>
<div>Woods (an HOA manager with Kellison) testified that he was never </div>
<div>told about Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>sump pump drain being </div>
<div>relocated. And the HOA board member across the street never </div>
<div>specified that he knew the water on the street in front <span></span>of the </div>
<div>Velgersdyks’<span> house was the result of Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>drain </span>
</div>
<div>relocation. </div>
<div>¶ 47<span> </span><span>Because there is support in the record for the district court<span>’</span><span>s </span></span>
</div>
<div>findings, it did not clearly err. <span>See Shekarchian</span>, ¶ 28. </div>
<div>D.<span> <span>Attorney Fees and Costs </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 48<span> </span><span>The <span>Velgersdyks’</span> last contention is that the district court erred </span>
</div>
<div>by failing to apportion its attorney fees award <span>by</span> distinguishing </div>
<div>between their breach of contract claims and tort claims<span>. </span>The HOA<span>, </span>
</div>
<div>in turn, requests appellate attorney fees and costs<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 49<span> <span>“[W]<span>e review a court</span>’<span>s award of costs for an abuse of </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>discretion. But we review the district court<span>’</span>s legal conclusions </div>
<div>forming the basis for that decision de novo.<span>” </span><span> Far Horizons Fa<span></span>rm, </span>
</div>
<div>LLC v. Flying Dutchman Condo. Ass<span>’</span><span>n</span><span>, 2023 COA 99, ¶ <span></span>34 (citation </span>
</div>
<div>omitted)<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 50<span> <span>It is well established that “under the American Rule, absent a </span></span>
</div>
<div>statutory or contract provision providing for the recovery <span></span>of attorney </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf1a" data-page-no="1a">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPWI2AOL2X&amp;Expires=1728727445&amp;Signature=cHGiMzeDt%2FcKh2j4eCHyN86g24k%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEEkaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIEra%2Fe2Bs0EFTQEzLZ2ZNtqiLFuqiku7IVXsohy9BZ%2BbAiEAtBU2%2FIcsrqKrV66zj5pcL0GqhwzQ9vYkKoj2kghqHXoquwUIov%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDMsNpYuUNAnjGFN9iyqPBQKjCh%2F2UiOtnZNriKegM%2B%2B3P37%2BElSQtEllp7mjTaxkJun%2F%2BdI7lKe45EDDTJWJL9YOIANyfnO727vbuGnN7r38LDBIOTMdzsIlcN0eSNtVNJ8SuXdKVkBGN7O4GYEZ2x0yULhKUboxLX98rayJjKfIKKsR8pnEqCaym8cdfbbsUl%2FttnwsWjaUUsVHq86bUFIWCfvwCsnfhSoH2iI9a7rv5sx5tQrRmKQMWqWOsVxxv%2F6FGeiw%2F9VzHfK2CzCRhmcQ1VxBf4dcg1AqyKI4B9tIdCnwuPiRxEYzLZy1w%2BXElE%2F9gjdeyDZQIRvHCjMUE1jQSIDE%2FY2xHENo6ZIMDCjBGk3ruC11cflYZDMF%2FFOYKkhgZXwnpWzjGdvdT0gLg8tqnXZ8SoknnscQKUANVRVUVt7XE7ARpxoMFD9A25BFIDX0jdh1XDnsDm5pSqXsuazcpVYYq5yhA3ML%2FhMG4zmEra0jKOsKVO7Yur5t6VRWJ2ptet9ZskCN7yL%2FyUaAc0rjb7vrrWQd0IownVkau4rehK17v5BEvVnx24miSoD4Qc%2Bd9NL2eBo5IxZNVoXG%2FKhj%2B4jydWVLXuAf0RtJQUgMOdFP0DjxoF7Gkkpvmrxy0lX0K7m7rJlhs0I7Ah8t2xptlv9sk6kdOA8ucp8mfX5JRrG8doN%2BQvXGVTUAfFbyI%2BbBqk7bnpxSFC2rwtrjX9IufEKGccDfOnp8Ert%2BPvE4gM7U5IAjeslD60ng8dI9MPrJJ7rqrBNUAdU4qEnZw27tUUXc8pvfd11l0fabQx%2F6diUJQqpMClFEtjdUgzILz54FLzuojTBDkrpT1%2BQ53WQQ82AUj8mmK5Oid4OjRsAUS9VNvJ36sQvsTUmumqkwku%2BouAY6sQFDPB0N8nptAZMIJ5XdveDK5MAZAabk3yd3AlB9t7tmvBTBE2miUf5v59JtqjpJo4c3RkX8f6C07nsTP5fl8Y6HkQdgF%2Fgin2G1voysi0qD3ugyi37psc5KX%2Bfbum26bZUXrKANhelKJfrKTr0UOJ1p65c7thgHehVly7V0Tz1masxD%2FWHCO23CQYT%2FFfsT9YTbd20haZHJxYmZCF9psK37sc7yjHAaizSGg6Y6DEUheRs%3D"><div>
<div>25 </div>
<div>fees, each party is responsible for paying their own attorney<span></span>s.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Mulberry Frontage Metro. Dist. v. Sunstate Equip. Co.<span>, 2023 CO<span></span>A 66, </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 27. <span>Th</span>e district court found that section 38-33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.<span></span>S. </div>
<div>2023,</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) </div>
<div>permitted awarding the HOA attorney fees and costs. <span></span>That statute </div>
<div>provides: “<span>In any civil action to enforce or defend the provision<span></span>s of </span>
</div>
<div>this article or of the declaration, bylaws, articles, or rules an<span></span>d </div>
<div>regulations, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, <span></span>costs, </div>
<div>and costs of collection to the prevailing party.<span>”</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 51<span> </span><span>At the district court<span>, </span>and on appeal,</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div> the Velgersdyks contend </div>
<div>that the district court erred by not apportioning the HOA<span>’</span>s </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> Effective August 7, 2024, section 38-<span>33<span>.3</span></span>-123(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024, </div>
<div>was amended to add subsections (1)(c)(I) and (1)(c)(II), which </div>
<div>substantially limit an award of attorney fees for an association </div>
<div>unless the property owner<span>’</span>s breach of a covenant or bylaws w<span></span>as the </div>
<div>result of a willful failure to comply. <span>See </span>Ch. 422, sec. 1, § 38-33.3-</div>
<div>123, 2024 Colo. Sess. Laws 2881<span>. </span><span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> A division of this court noted in <span>Far Horizons Farm, LLC v. Flyi<span></span>ng </span>
</div>
<div>Dutchman Condominium Ass<span>’</span><span>n</span><span> that its interpretation of section <span></span>38-</span>
</div>
<div>33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.S. 2023 <span>—</span> that the district court is required t<span></span>o </div>
<div>determine who is the prevailing party as a whole and not on a </div>
<div>claim-<span>by</span><span>-claim basis </span><span>—</span><span> did not necessarily mean that the <span></span>statute </span>
</div>
<div>allowed for fee awards unrelated to CCIOA claims, but left<span></span> the issue </div>
<div>unresolved<span>. <span>See <span>2023 COA 99, ¶¶ <span>28</span>-29. </span></span></span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div> The Velgersdyks <span>do not mention “block billing” in </span>their opening </div>
<div>brief on appeal, but their apportionment argument <span>is</span> consistent </div>
<div>with this argument at the district court. <span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pf1a" data-dest-detail='[26,"XYZ",69,334,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:139.213889px;bottom:751.997778px;width:10.090000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="#pf1a" data-dest-detail='[26,"XYZ",69,236,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:494.448889px;bottom:542.007778px;width:10.090000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="#pf1a" data-dest-detail='[26,"XYZ",69,121,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:448.525556px;bottom:500.007222px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf1b" data-page-no="1b">
<div><div>
<div>26 </div>
<div>requested fees by claim and that the HOA <span>engaged in “block billing” </span>
</div>
<div>by lumping together its time spent on claims that are not </div>
<div>recoverable under CCIOA along with recoverable claims. <span></span> The </div>
<div>district court found that the “separate claims asserted by <span></span>Plaintiffs </div>
<div>were essentially based upon the same set of operative facts <span></span>to </div>
<div>establish liability. . . . [Thus] the claims were substant<span></span>ially </div>
<div>interrelated, dependent upon the same nexus of operative facts,<span></span> and </div>
<div>. . . an apportionment of fees is not required or appropriat<span>e.” <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 52<span> </span><span>Block billing is not prohibited in Colorado, but district courts </span>
</div>
<div>have “discretion to reduce the hours billed based on <span></span>block billing if </div>
<div>the court is unable to determine whether the amount of <span></span>time spent </div>
<div>on various tasks was reasonable.” <span>Payan v. Nash Finch Co.<span>, 2012 </span></span>
</div>
<div>COA 135M, ¶ 29. The Colorado Supreme Court and divisions <span></span>of </div>
<div>this court have favorably looked to <span>Hensley v. Eckerhart</span>, 461 U.S.<span></span> </div>
<div>424, 434-35 (1983), for issues involving fees and claim </div>
<div>apportionment<span>. <span>See Rocky Mountain Festivals, Inc. v. Parsons Corp.</span>, </span>
</div>
<div>242 P.3d 1067, 1073 (Colo. 2010); <span>Ra</span><span>vensta<span></span>r LLC v. One Ski Hill </span>
</div>
<div>Place LLC<span>, 2016 COA 11, ¶ 49, </span><span>aff<span>’</span><span>d</span></span><span>, 2017 CO 83<span>; </span></span><span>Payan</span><span>, ¶ 34. </span>
</div>
<div>In <span>Hensley</span>, the United States Supreme Court </div>
<div>considered whether an award of attorneys<span>’</span> fees </div>
<div>under a fee-shifting statute could be levied </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf1c" data-page-no="1c">
<div><div>
<div>27 </div>
<div>when the plaintiff was successful in some </div>
<div>claims and not in others. The Court </div>
<div>determined that, where a plaintiff had brought </div>
<div>multiple claims “involv[ing] a common core of </div>
<div>facts” or “based on related legal theories,” </div>
<div>counsel<span>’</span><span>s efforts on an individual claim could </span>
</div>
<div>not be distinguished from work on the whole of </div>
<div>the litigation, and thus a reduction in the fee </div>
<div>award for work done on unsuccessful claims </div>
<div>would be inappropriate. On the other hand, </div>
<div>where the plaintiff presented “dist<span>inctly </span>
</div>
<div>different claims for relief that [were] based on </div>
<div>different facts and legal theories,” the litigation </div>
<div>could be justly conceived as a “series of </div>
<div>discrete claims” that had been “raised in </div>
<div>separate lawsuits,” and so a fee award that </div>
<div>contemplated only those claims on which the </div>
<div>plaintiff had succeeded was both practicable </div>
<div>and necessary to affect the purpose of the fee-</div>
<div>shifting statute. </div>
<div>Rocky Mountain Festivals<span>, 242 P.3d at 1073 (citing and quoting </span>
</div>
<div>Hensley<span>, <span>461 U.S. at 434-35). </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 53<span> </span><span>Under the <span>Hensley</span> approach, where a fee-shifting statute <span>—</span> </span>
</div>
<div>here CCIOA <span>—</span> allows for attorney fees for some claims but not </div>
<div>others, attorney fees need not be apportioned among <span></span>the claims if </div>
<div>all of the claims revolve around a common core of facts or related </div>
<div>legal theories to the extent they cannot reasonably be separate<span></span>d<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>See Rocky Mountain Festivals<span>, 242 P.3d at 1073-<span>74</span><span>.</span><span> </span>The fact finder </span>
</div>
<div>is in the best position to make <span>this determination, as “whet<span></span>her </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf1d" data-page-no="1d">
<div><div>
<div>28 </div>
<div>claims are interrelated or segregable is inherently sensitive to <span></span>the </div>
<div>facts of both the case at bar and those of the underlying dispute.” <span></span> </div>
<div>Id. <span>at 1074. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 54<span> </span><span>Here, the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> claims against the HOA were for (1) </span>
</div>
<div>negligence <span>for</span> failing to maintain Outlot B properly and prevent </div>
<div>excess drainage; (2) trespass and nuisance for failing to prevent<span></span> </div>
<div>drainage from Outlot B onto the property; (3) breach of contract <span></span>for </div>
<div>failing to maintain Outlot B and failing to prevent Trembley and </div>
<div>Karbacka’s<span> drainage and grading modifications; and (4) injunctive </span>
</div>
<div>relief. These claims all surround a common core of operative f<span></span>acts </div>
<div>and boil down to two key issues <span>—</span> what was the source of the </div>
<div>alleged extra water entering the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> property, and who was </div>
<div>responsible? The factual research the HOA undertook to defend </div>
<div>against the <span>Velgersdyks’</span> tort<span>, </span>breach of contract, and injunctive </div>
<div>relief claims relating to Outlot B and Trembley <span>and Karbacka’s </span>
</div>
<div>drainage substantially overlapped. I<span>t </span>was reasonable for the district </div>
<div>court to determine that work on each individual claim was </div>
<div>in<span>distinguishable from the others and the whole of the litigation. <span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>See id.<span> at 1073-74. <span> </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf1e" data-page-no="1e">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPWI2AOL2X&amp;Expires=1728727445&amp;Signature=cHGiMzeDt%2FcKh2j4eCHyN86g24k%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEEkaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIEra%2Fe2Bs0EFTQEzLZ2ZNtqiLFuqiku7IVXsohy9BZ%2BbAiEAtBU2%2FIcsrqKrV66zj5pcL0GqhwzQ9vYkKoj2kghqHXoquwUIov%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDMsNpYuUNAnjGFN9iyqPBQKjCh%2F2UiOtnZNriKegM%2B%2B3P37%2BElSQtEllp7mjTaxkJun%2F%2BdI7lKe45EDDTJWJL9YOIANyfnO727vbuGnN7r38LDBIOTMdzsIlcN0eSNtVNJ8SuXdKVkBGN7O4GYEZ2x0yULhKUboxLX98rayJjKfIKKsR8pnEqCaym8cdfbbsUl%2FttnwsWjaUUsVHq86bUFIWCfvwCsnfhSoH2iI9a7rv5sx5tQrRmKQMWqWOsVxxv%2F6FGeiw%2F9VzHfK2CzCRhmcQ1VxBf4dcg1AqyKI4B9tIdCnwuPiRxEYzLZy1w%2BXElE%2F9gjdeyDZQIRvHCjMUE1jQSIDE%2FY2xHENo6ZIMDCjBGk3ruC11cflYZDMF%2FFOYKkhgZXwnpWzjGdvdT0gLg8tqnXZ8SoknnscQKUANVRVUVt7XE7ARpxoMFD9A25BFIDX0jdh1XDnsDm5pSqXsuazcpVYYq5yhA3ML%2FhMG4zmEra0jKOsKVO7Yur5t6VRWJ2ptet9ZskCN7yL%2FyUaAc0rjb7vrrWQd0IownVkau4rehK17v5BEvVnx24miSoD4Qc%2Bd9NL2eBo5IxZNVoXG%2FKhj%2B4jydWVLXuAf0RtJQUgMOdFP0DjxoF7Gkkpvmrxy0lX0K7m7rJlhs0I7Ah8t2xptlv9sk6kdOA8ucp8mfX5JRrG8doN%2BQvXGVTUAfFbyI%2BbBqk7bnpxSFC2rwtrjX9IufEKGccDfOnp8Ert%2BPvE4gM7U5IAjeslD60ng8dI9MPrJJ7rqrBNUAdU4qEnZw27tUUXc8pvfd11l0fabQx%2F6diUJQqpMClFEtjdUgzILz54FLzuojTBDkrpT1%2BQ53WQQ82AUj8mmK5Oid4OjRsAUS9VNvJ36sQvsTUmumqkwku%2BouAY6sQFDPB0N8nptAZMIJ5XdveDK5MAZAabk3yd3AlB9t7tmvBTBE2miUf5v59JtqjpJo4c3RkX8f6C07nsTP5fl8Y6HkQdgF%2Fgin2G1voysi0qD3ugyi37psc5KX%2Bfbum26bZUXrKANhelKJfrKTr0UOJ1p65c7thgHehVly7V0Tz1masxD%2FWHCO23CQYT%2FFfsT9YTbd20haZHJxYmZCF9psK37sc7yjHAaizSGg6Y6DEUheRs%3D"><div>
<div>29 </div>
<div>¶ 55<span> </span><span>The record supports the district court<span>’</span>s conclusion that the </span>
</div>
<div>Velgersdyks’<span> <span>“claims were substantially interrelated, dependent<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>upon the same nexus of operative facts.<span>” </span> Thus, it did not abuse its </div>
<div>discretion by declining to reduce the HOA<span>’</span>s attorney fees despite the </div>
<div>HOA not apportioning its requested fees by claim. <span>See Far Hori<span></span>zons </span>
</div>
<div>Farm<span>, ¶<span> 34; <span>see also</span> </span></span>Payan<span>, ¶ 29. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 56<span> </span><span>Finally, the HOA requests appellate attorney fees pursuant to </span>
</div>
<div>section <span>38</span>-33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.S. 2023, C.A.R. 39(a)(2), and C.<span></span>A.R. </div>
<div>39.1.</div>
</div>
<div><div>6</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>See Far Horizons Farm<span>,</span> <span>¶ 39 (the prevailing party as a whole </span></span>
</div>
<div>may recover reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs inc<span></span>urred </div>
<div>in litigating claims arising under CCIOA).<span> </span>Because we affirm the </div>
<div>district court’s judgment<span>, the HOA is the prevailing party on appeal </span>
</div>
<div>and it is entitled to appellate attorney fees. <span>See </span>C.A.R. 39(a)(2); </div>
<div>§ <span>38</span>-33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.S. 2023. We exercise our discretion </div>
<div>pursuant to C.A.R. 39.1 and remand the case to the district court <span></span>to </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>6</div></div>
<div>
<div> Because the amendments to section 38-33.3-123(1)(c) apply to </div>
<div>“debts accrued on or after the applicable effective date of this act” </div>
<div>on August 7, 2024, the amendments do not apply to any att<span></span>orney </div>
<div>fees the HOA accrued before August 7, 2024.<span> </span>Sec. 9, 2024 Colo. </div>
<div>Sess. Laws at 2887. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf1e" data-dest-detail='[30,"XYZ",69,154,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:133.847222px;bottom:541.969444px;width:10.080000px;height:32.890000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf1f" data-page-no="1f">
<div><div>
<div>30 </div>
<div>determine an award of reasonable appellate attorney fees in </div>
<div>addition to its award of attorney fees and costs incurred below. </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Disposition </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 57<span> </span><span>The district court<span>’</span>s judgment is affirmed, and we remand the </span>
</div>
<div>case <span>so</span><span> the district court may determine an award of appellate </span>
</div>
<div>attorney fees in accordance with this opinion. </div>
<div>JUDGE JOHNSON and JUDGE SCHOCK concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>