eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Colorado Court of Appeals
 2024-10

Majersky v. LCM Prop Mgmt ( 2024 )


Menu:
 
  • <div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>24CA0046 Majersky v LCM Prop Mgmt 10-10-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 24CA0046 </div>
<div>Arapahoe County District Court No. 23CV109 </div>
<div>Honorable <span>Elizabeth Beebe Volz</span>, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Gregory Majersky, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellant, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>LCM Property Management, Inc., </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellee. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE </div>
<div>REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division II </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE <span>FOX</span> </div>
<div>Johnson<span> and Schock, JJ., concur </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 10, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Gregory Majersky, Pro Se </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jachimiak Peterson Kummer, LLC, Joseph R. Kummer, <span>Taylor A. Clapp, </span>
</div>
<div>Lakewood, Colorado, for Defendant<span>-Appellee </span>
</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><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Plaintiff, Gregory Majersky, appeals the district court<span>’</span><span>s </span>order </span>
</div>
<div>granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, LCM Prope<span></span>rty </div>
<div>Management, Inc. (LCM).  We affirm and remand the case to the </div>
<div>district court for a determination of LCM<span>’</span>s reasonable attorney fees. <span></span>  </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>Majersky is a resident and homeowner in Aurora<span>’</span><span>s </span></span>
</div>
<div>Summerfield Villas community, which is governed by a homeowners </div>
<div>association (HOA), the Summerfield Villas Homeowners Associati<span></span>on </div>
<div>(Summerfield).  Summerfield hired LCM as its property </div>
<div>management company.  This appeal arises out of a disp<span></span>ute between </div>
<div>Majersky and LCM<span>’</span>s employee, Suzanne Lopez, the Summerfiel<span></span>d </div>
<div>Community Manager.<span>  </span>In March 2023, Majersky expressed an </div>
<div>interest in running for a seat on Summerfield<span>’</span>s Board of Direct<span></span>ors </div>
<div>(Board).<span>  <span>However, Lopez informed Majersky that he could not vote </span></span>
</div>
<div>or run in the election because he was delinquent in paying his <span></span>HOA </div>
<div>assessment fees.   </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>On April 25, 2023, proceeding pro se<span>, </span>Majersky sued LCM, </span>
</div>
<div>alleging that, as Lopez<span>’</span>s employer, LCM violated Majersky<span>’</span>s First </div>
<div>Amendment rights by restricting his participation in the </div>
<div>Summerfield election.  Majersky later amended his complaint to </div>
</div></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>allege that the same conduct violated his Fourteenth Amendment </div>
<div>due process rights.<span>  </span>LCM then moved to dismiss Majersky<span>’</span>s First </div>
<div>Amendment claims.  The district court granted the motion, <span></span>finding </div>
<div>that Majersky failed to state a claim under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) </div>
<div>because LCM and Summerfield are private entities, not “state </div>
<div>actors” subject to the First Amendment.  Before discovery, <span>LCM </span>
</div>
<div>moved for summary judgment on Majersky<span>’</span>s remaining due process </div>
<div>claims, which the court also granted.<span>  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>In granting summary judgment, the district court focused </span>
</div>
<div>primarily on the proper interpretation of Summerfield<span>’</span><span>s </span><span>“<span>Bylaws,</span><span>”</span></span> </div>
<div>“<span>Declarations,</span>”<span> </span>“<span>Rules and Regulations,</span>”<span> and </span>“<span>Articles of </span>
</div>
<div>Incorporation<span>”</span><span> (collectively, the Governing Documents)<span>. </span> <span>It</span> f<span></span>ound no </span>
</div>
<div>genuine dispute as to any material facts, based on the following<span>: </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The Bylaws authorize the Board and its agents to </span></span>
</div>
<div>preclude a homeowner from voting on Summerfield </div>
<div>matters when the homeowner has delinquent assessment </div>
<div>fees.  </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Although the Governing Documents do not explicitly </span></span>
</div>
<div>address whether a delinquent homeowner may run for a </div>
<div>Board position, the Bylaws provision that restricts voting </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>rights can reasonably be applied to so preclude </div>
<div>delinquent homeowners.  </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The Governing Documents authorize the Board to employ </span></span>
</div>
<div>agents to enforce the Governing Documents.  </div>
<div>•<span> <span>The Board hired LCM consistent<span>ly</span> with these provisions. </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>Majersky was delinquent and thus properly precluded </span></span>
</div>
<div>from voting and running in the Summerfield election<span>.  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>LCM subsequently moved to recover attorney fees and costs as </span>
</div>
<div>the prevailing party under section 38-33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024.<span>  </span>
</div>
<div>Shortly thereafter, Majersky filed his notice of appeal.  On <span></span>February </div>
<div>16, 2024, after the notice of appeal was filed, the district court </div>
<div>found that LCM was entitled to attorney fees but stayed it<span></span>s ruling </div>
<div>on the amount of the award pending this appeal.   </div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Issues Raised on Appeal  </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>On appeal, Majersky raises two main arguments.  First, he </span>
</div>
<div>argues that the district court erroneously interpret<span>ed</span> the Bylaws as </div>
<div>allowing the Board and LCM to suspend a delinquent homeown<span></span>er<span>’</span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>eligibility to run for a Board seat.<span>  </span>Second, he argues that the </div>
<div>district court erred by finding that the Board and/or the Governing </div>
<div>Documents gave LCM and<span> </span>Lopez authority to suspend his voting </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LPRq8S5CgmfqXTRhsPguDhpDnTM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>rights.<span>  <span>Thus, Majersky asserts that LCM violated his Fourteent<span></span>h </span></span>
</div>
<div>Amendment due process rights by suspending his rights t<span></span>o vote in </div>
<div>and run for the Summerfield election.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div>  Majersky also raises several </div>
<div>arguments that were not preserved for appeal because they <span></span>were </div>
<div>not raised in the district court or were raised for the first time in <span></span>his </div>
<div>reply brief.<span>  </span>Finally, LCM asks us to award its attorney fees under </div>
<div>section <span>38</span>-33.3-123(1)(c) <span>for</span> defending this appeal.<span>  </span> </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Standard of Review  </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>We review de novo orders granting summary judgment.  <span>Vista<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>Ridge Master Homeowners Ass<span>’</span>n v. Arcadia Holdings at<span></span> Vista Ridge, </div>
<div>LLC<span>,
    2013 COA 26
    , ¶ 8.  Under C.R.C.P. 56(c), summary j<span></span>udgment </span>
</div>
<div>is warranted when “there is no genuine issue as to any <span></span>material fact </div>
<div>[such] that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a <span></span>matter of </div>
<div>law.” <span> We also review de novo a district court</span><span>’</span><span>s interpretation of<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> In his notice of appeal, Majersky indicated that he appealed <span></span>only </div>
<div>the district court’s order from December 7, 2023, not t<span></span>he court’s </div>
<div>June 27, 2023, order dismissing his First Amendment <span></span>claims.  <span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Prairie Mountain Publ’g Co. v. Regents of Univ. of Colo.<span>, 2021 CO<span></span>A </span>
</div>
<div>26, ¶ 10 n.3 (“Arguments not advanced on appeal are gener<span></span>ally </div>
<div>deemed waived.”).  However, we liberally construe pro se p<span></span>arties’ </div>
<div>filings.  <span>See Minshall v. Johnst<span>on</span></span>,
    2018 COA 44
    , ¶ 21.  Regardles<span></span>s of </div>
<div>whether Majersky waived his First Amendment argument<span></span>s, our </div>
<div>conclusion that LCM and Summerfield are not state <span></span>actors is </div>
<div>dispositive of both constitutional claims.   </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf5" data-dest-detail='[5,"XYZ",69,236,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:418.983333px;bottom:794.011111px;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="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>declarations of covenants, bylaws, and other governing docum<span></span>ents<span>. </span> </div>
<div>See Vista Ridge<span>, ¶ 8.   </span>
</div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Analysis </span>
</div>
<div>A.<span> <span>The Bylaws Implicitly Authorize Summerfield and LCM to </span></span>
</div>
<div>Suspend Majersky<span>’</span>s Eligibility to Run in Summerfield </div>
<div>Elections  </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Majersky first argues that the district court erred by finding </span>
</div>
<div>that the Governing Documents allow the Board or its <span></span>agent(s) to </div>
<div>suspend a delinquent homeowner<span>’</span><span>s </span>eligibility to run in <span></span>Board </div>
<div>elections.<span>  <span>Essential to the district court</span></span><span>’</span><span>s ruling was Article VII, </span>
</div>
<div>section (1)(b) of the Bylaws, which grants the Board authority <span>to</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>“suspend the voting rights . . . of a member during any perio<span></span>d in </div>
<div>which such member shall be in default in the payment of<span></span> any </div>
<div>assessment levied by [Summerfield]<span>.”</span><span>  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Although nothing in the Governing Documents discuss<span>es</span> </span>
</div>
<div>eligibility to run in Summerfield elections, the court reasoned that<span></span> </div>
<div>the Bylaws provision restricting voting rights could reasonably </div>
<div>apply to restricting a delinquent homeowner<span>’</span>s eligibility to run for a </div>
<div>Board seat.<span>  </span>Specifically, because the homeowner would be una<span></span>ble </div>
<div>to vote on matters before the Board or meaningfully partici<span></span>pate as a </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>Board member, the court found that a contrary interpretati<span></span>on </div>
<div>would lead to absurd results.<span>  </span>We agree. </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>When interpreting HOA covenants and other governing </span>
</div>
<div>documents, we first look to the plain language, “giving words an<span></span>d </div>
<div>phrases their common meanings.”<span>  <span>McShane v. Stirling Ra<span></span>nch Prop. </span></span>
</div>
<div>Owners Ass<span>’</span><span>n</span><span>,</span> <span>
    2017 CO 38
    , ¶ 16.  When a document<span>’</span>s meaning <span></span>is </span>
</div>
<div>clear, we will enforce it as written.  <span>Id<span>.</span></span>  At the same time, we </div>
<div>“construe covenants as a whole, <span>keeping in mind their underlying </span>
</div>
<div>purpose<span>.”</span><span>  <span>Buick v. Highland Meadow Ests. at Castle Pea<span></span>k Ranch, </span></span>
</div>
<div>Inc.<span>, <span>
    21 P.3d 860
    , 862 (Colo. 2001).  Thus, we seek to give effect to </span></span>
</div>
<div>the intention of those who created the instrument and avoid hy<span></span>per-</div>
<div>technical interpretations that will defeat th<span>at</span> intention or yiel<span></span>d </div>
<div>absurd results.  <span>Quarky, LLC v. Gabrick</span>,
    2024 COA 76
    , ¶ 11.  On </div>
<div>this point, <span>Evergreen Highlands Ass<span>’</span>n v. West</span>,
    73 P.3d 1
     (Colo. </div>
<div>2003), is instructive.   </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>In <span>West</span>, our supreme court considered whether, absent an </span>
</div>
<div>explicit written provision imposing mandatory dues, an HO<span></span>A had </div>
<div>implicit power to collect assessments from members. <span> <span>Id<span>.</span></span></span> at 2<span>, 4. </span> </div>
<div>Relying in part on the Colorado Common Interest Ownership <span></span>Act </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LPRq8S5CgmfqXTRhsPguDhpDnTM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>(CCIOA)</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> and the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes (Am. </div>
<div>L. Inst. 2000) (hereinafter, Restatement),</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> the court found such an </div>
<div>implied power<span>. </span> <span>West</span>, 73 P.3d at 7-9.  Specifically, because </div>
<div>collecting assessment fees is so integral to an HOA<span>’</span><span>s </span>function, this </div>
<div>power can be implied.  <span>See id.</span> at 8 (Colorado<span>’</span>s continued economic </div>
<div>prosperity <span>depends on “</span>the strengthening of homeowner </div>
<div>associations . . . through enhancing the financial stability of </div>
<div>associations by . . . “collect[ing] delinquent assessments”<span> (quoting </span>
</div>
<div>§ <span>38</span><span>-33.3-102(1)(<span>b)</span></span>, C.R.S. 20<span>24<span>)).</span></span>  For two reasons, we apply </div>
<div>similar reasoning here.  </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>First, allowing a delinquent homeowner to serve on the Board </span>
</div>
<div>undermines an HOA<span>’</span>s essential ability to collect delinquent fees<span>. </span> </div>
<div>This situation could create an inherent conflict of interest between </div>
<div>the HOA, the member seeking to evade payment, and other Board </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div><div> §<span>§ <span>38</span></span>-33.1-101 <span>to</span> -<span>402</span>, C.R.S. 2024.  </div></div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> While Colorado has not explicitly adopted the Restatement in <span></span>full, </div>
<div>our courts consistently rely on its principles for guidance. <span></span> <span>See, e.g.</span><span>,</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>Evergreen Highlands Ass’n v. <span>West</span><span>, 73 P.3d <span>1,</span> 4 (Colo. 2003) </span>
</div>
<div>(adopting the Restatement<span>’</span>s approach regarding homeowners </div>
<div>a<span>ssociations’ <span>implicit power to collect fees); <span>Roaring Fork Club, L.P. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>v. St. Jude<span>’</span><span>s Co.</span><span>,
    36 P.3d 1229
    , 1235 (Colo. 2001) (adopting<span></span> part of </span>
</div>
<div>the Restatement concerning easements); <span>Lobato v. Taylor</span>, 71 P.3d </div>
<div>938, 950-56 (Colo. 2002) (relying heavily on the Restatement <span></span>to </div>
<div>reach a conclusion). </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf8" data-dest-detail='[8,"XYZ",69,236,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:158.866111px;bottom:877.999444px;width:10.090000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="#pf8" data-dest-detail='[8,"XYZ",69,219,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:445.088333px;bottom:836.011667px;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="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LPRq8S5CgmfqXTRhsPguDhpDnTM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>members<span>. <span> Indeed, CCIOA requires specific policies concerning </span></span>
</div>
<div>Board members<span>’</span> conflicts of interest.</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div>  § 38-33.3-209.5(1)(b)(II), (4), </div>
<div>C.R.S. 2024; <span>see also </span>§ 38-33.3-310.5, C.R.S. 2024 (applying </div>
<div>section 7-128-501, C.R.S. 2024, the Colorado Revised Nonprof<span></span>it </div>
<div>Corporation Act<span>’</span>s conflicts of interest provision, to HOAs).  </div>
<div>Additionally, HOAs may “without specific authorization in t<span></span>he </div>
<div>declaration . . . [e]xercise any other powers necessar<span></span>y and proper for </div>
<div>the governance and operation of the association.”<span> <span> </span>§ 38-33.3-</span>
</div>
<div>302(1)(q), C.R.S. 2024<span>. </span> Preventing conflicts of interest on the Board </div>
<div>is one such power that we may reasonably infer<span>. </span>  </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>Second, allowing <span>a </span>delinquent homeowner to serve on t<span></span>he </span>
</div>
<div>Board leads to absurd results and contradicts the homeowner<span>’</span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>duties as a Board member.<span>  </span>As a nonprofit<span>, </span>Summerfield is subject </div>
<div>to additional statutory requirements.<span>  </span>Thus, Summerfield Board </div>
<div>members have a duty to act <span>“in the best interests of the nonprofit.<span></span>”<span>  </span></span>
</div>
<div>§ 7-128-401(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024<span>; </span><span>see also</span> Restatement § 6.14 cmt. a </div>
<div>(imposing on HOA directors and officers a duty to comply with the </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> While Summerfield does not appear to have such a provision in <span></span>its </div>
<div>Governing Documents, it would be a best practice to adopt one, as </div>
<div>it is <span>as</span> a statutory requirement<span>.  </span><span>See</span> <span>§ <span>38</span></span>-33.3-117(1.5)(c), C.R.S. </div>
<div>2024 (applying section <span>38</span>-33.3-209.5 to HOAs created before 1992). </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf9" data-dest-detail='[9,"XYZ",69,137,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:410.026111px;bottom:836.011667px;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="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LG8SVuCF%2B3sP9dNHy6pvsoDBFcw%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>governing documents).  Failing to pay required assessment fees </div>
<div>both violates Summerfield<span>’</span>s Governing Documents and conflicts </div>
<div>with its interest in collecting fees to care for common areas.<span>  </span>
</div>
<div>Moreover, a delinquent homeowner who cannot vote but can <span></span>sit on </div>
<div>t<span>he</span><span> Board would be a non-voting member, unable to perform </span>
</div>
<div>essential Board functions.  </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> <span>Such conflicted or “lame duck” membership contradict<span>s </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>CCIOA and Summerfield<span>’</span>s Governing Documents.  Therefore, while </div>
<div>Majersky is correct that the Governing Documents do not expressly </div>
<div>require homeowners to be in “good standing”<span> or current on t<span></span>heir </span>
</div>
<div>dues to run in Summerfield elections, we find that a hyper-</div>
<div>technical interpretation is not appropriate in this instance.<span>  </span><span>See </span>
</div>
<div>Quarky<span>, ¶ 11.  Instead, we hold that CCIOA and the Bylaws give the </span>
</div>
<div>Board an implied power to suspend a delinquent homeowner<span>’</span>s </div>
<div>eligibility to run for a Board seat.</div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div>  Under the Bylaws and </div>
<div>Declarations, Majersky was required to pay his assessments.<span>  </span>It is </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>5</div></div>
<div>
<div> While Summerfield is technically exempt from section <span>38</span><span>-33.3-</span>
</div>
<div>306(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024, as an HOA created before 1992, definin<span></span>g </div>
<div>Board member qualifications could help avoid disputes like the one </div>
<div>before us.  <span>See</span> § 38-33.3-<span>117</span>(3) (exempting HOAs created before </div>
<div>1992 from CCIOA except as expressly provided)<span>; </span>§ 38-33.3-306(1)(c) </div>
<div>(requiring Board member qualifications in HOA bylaws)<span>.  </span> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pfa" data-dest-detail='[10,"XYZ",69,170,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:378.886667px;bottom:290.004444px;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="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LPRq8S5CgmfqXTRhsPguDhpDnTM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>10 </div>
<div>also undisputed that Majersky was in default when he asked to run </div>
<div>in the Summerfield election.<span>  </span>Therefore, we affirm the district </div>
<div>court<span>’</span><span>s conclusion that LCM had authority to prevent Majersky fr<span></span>om </span>
</div>
<div>running in the election.   <span> </span>
</div>
<div>B.<span> <span>The Bylaws and the Board gave LCM Authority to Suspen<span></span>d </span></span>
</div>
<div>Majersky<span>’</span><span>s <span>Eligibility to Vote in Summerfield Elections </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>Next, Majersky contends that the district court erred by </span>
</div>
<div>finding that LCM and Lopez had authority <span>to</span> suspend his voting </div>
<div>rights.<span>  <span>Specifically, he argues that only the Board has such power </span></span>
</div>
<div>and, even if it could delegate its authority to LCM, it failed to <span></span>do so.<span>  </span>
</div>
<div>LCM responds by citing Summerfield<span>’</span><span>s </span>Rules and Regulations, </div>
<div>which give the Board authority to appoint a “community manager<span></span>” </div>
<div>responsible for the day-<span>to</span>-day enforcement of the Governing </div>
<div>Documents<span>.  <span>Thus, because Summerfield hired LCM and Lopez </span></span>
</div>
<div>(LCM<span>’</span><span>s employee)<span>, </span>LCM argues that it had authority to suspend </span>
</div>
<div>Majersky<span>’</span><span>s voting<span>. </span> We agree for two reasons<span>. </span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>First, both the Bylaws and the Declarations allow the Board to </span>
</div>
<div>suspend a delinquent homeowner<span>’</span>s voting rights.</div>
</div>
<div><div>6</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>This is </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>6</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>The Bylaws plainly state that “</span>[t]he Board of Directors shall have </div>
<div>power to . . . suspend the voting rights” of delinquent <span></span>homeowners<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pfb" data-dest-detail='[11,"XYZ",69,104,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:519.173889px;bottom:188.165556px;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="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMU/bgV/MMUbgVMve4mcEeiy/O3WJejKj3iNRCc4renUThabJdb5M%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=0%2BYyZvHNgZR1ZORvUsRj5Syd8kg%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>11 </div>
<div>consistent with the responsibility that an HOA can require property </div>
<div>owners to pay their dues and penalize <span>a </span>delinquency.  <span>See West</span>, 73 </div>
<div>P.3d at <span>7;</span><span> </span>§ 38-33.3-302(1)(j)-<span>(k</span>) (allowing HOAs to impose </div>
<div>assessments, fines, and late fees).   </div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>Second, the Governing Documents allow the Board to delegate </span>
</div>
<div>responsibilities.<span>  <span>Under <span>the Bylaws, the Board may “employ a </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>manager, independent contractor, or such other employees<span>”</span> <span>it</span> </div>
<div>deems <span>“</span>necessary and . . . <span>prescribe their duties.”</span><span>  </span>The Rules and </div>
<div>Regulations allow the Board to “appoint an <span>agent for the </span>
</div>
<div>association, the <span>‘</span>Community Manager,<span>’</span> who is authorized to han<span></span>dle </div>
<div>day to day enforcement of these rules and regulations, the </div>
<div>Declarations, the Articles of Incorporation, and the Bylaws<span>.”</span><span>  </span>Thus, </div>
<div>the power to manage <span>“day to day enforcement” of the Bylaws </span>
</div>
<div>implicitly includes the disputed provision regarding voting<span></span> rights.</div>
</div>
<div><div>7</div></div>
<div>
<div>  </div>
<div>The power to delegate responsibilities is also consistent <span></span>with </div>
<div>CCIOA.  <span>See</span> § 38-33.3-302(1)(c); § 38-33.3-<span>30</span>6(1)(d), C.R.S. 2024<span>. </span> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>7</div></div>
<div>
<div> Contrary to Majersky<span>’</span>s argument, the Board need not explicitly </div>
<div>enumerate every one of the Community Manager<span>’</span>s enforcement </div>
<div>powers.<span>  <span> </span></span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pfc" data-dest-detail='[12,"XYZ",69,121,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:660.100000px;bottom:332.030556px;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>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Majersky does not dispute Lopez<span>’s role as “HOA </span><span>manager.<span>”</span></span><span>  </span></span>
</div>
<div>Moreover, LCM established in the district court that <span>—</span> at all </div>
<div>relevant times <span>—</span> LCM was Summerfield<span>’</span><span>s </span>agent as its prope<span></span>rty </div>
<div>management company, and Lopez was an LCM employee.<span>  </span>Finally, </div>
<div>Majersky never disputed the fact or amount of his delinquent </div>
<div>assessment fees.<span>  </span>When Lopez informed Majersky that he could not </div>
<div>vote, she did not create policy or impose new, unknown rules; </div>
<div>acting on behalf of the Board and consistent<span>ly</span> with the Bylaws, she </div>
<div>merely communicated that <span>he was “in collection and can’</span>t vote<span>.”</span><span>  </span>
</div>
<div>Therefore, we affirm the district court<span>’</span><span>s </span>interpretation that the </div>
<div>Bylaws grant<span>ed</span> LCM authority to suspend Majersky<span>’</span><span>s </span>eligibility to </div>
<div>vote in the Summerfield election.   </div>
<div>C.<span> <span>LCM is Not a <span>“</span>State Actor<span>”</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>Majersky reasserts his argument raised in the district court </span>
</div>
<div>that LCM<span>’</span>s conduct in restricting his voting and election eligibility </div>
<div>violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.<span>  </span>He also </div>
<div>asserts, in a single sentence, that Lopez <span>and LCM “obstructed my </span>
</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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MMX/n%2Be/MMXn%2BekQ817y/lXyeovZwcgeMWibwHo7dUSO3Lu0a7r74%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LG8SVuCF%2B3sP9dNHy6pvsoDBFcw%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>13 </div>
<div>right to free speech.”</div>
</div>
<div><div>8</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>LCM responds that the Constitution does not </span>
</div>
<div>apply to either LCM or Summerfield as private entities.<span>  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>In granting summary judgment for LCM on Majersky<span>’</span>s due </span>
</div>
<div>process claims, the district court focused on the proper </div>
<div>construction of the Governing Documents rather than on whether </div>
<div>the Fourteenth Amendment applied to LCM as a private entity.<span>  </span>
</div>
<div>However, in its order dismissing Majersky<span>’</span>s First Amendment </div>
<div>claims, the court briefly discussed whether the Fourteenth </div>
<div>Amendment applied to LCM.</div>
</div>
<div><div>9</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>Because neither LCM nor </span>
</div>
<div>Summerfield is a state actor to whom the First and Fourteenth </div>
<div>Amendments apply, we affirm.  </div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>United States Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the </span>
</div>
<div>Fourteenth Amendment “can be violated only by conduct that<span></span> may </div>
<div>be fairly characterized as <span>‘</span>state action.<span>’”</span>  <span>Lugar v. Edmondson Oi<span></span>l </span>
</div>
<div>Co.<span>,
    457 U.S. 922
    , 924 (1982).  The limited circumstances in which </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>8</div></div>
<div>
<div> As discussed, <span>supra</span>, note 1, our conclusion concernin<span></span>g due </div>
<div>process is dispositive of Majersky’s First Amendment claims. <span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>9</div></div>
<div>
<div> Because LCM initially only moved for partial dismissal on t<span></span>he First </div>
<div>Amendment claims, Majersky<span>’</span>s due process claims were not befo<span></span>re </div>
<div>the district court at that time.  However, the court quoted <span>People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Ramadon<span>,
    2013 CO 68
    , ¶ 20 n.2, <span>for the proposition that<span></span> “<span>[i]t is well </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>settled that a constitutional due process violation can only<span></span> occur by </div>
<div>way of a state actor.” <span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pfe" data-dest-detail='[14,"XYZ",69,203,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:269.790000px;bottom:877.999444px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="#pfe" data-dest-detail='[14,"XYZ",69,170,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:338.841111px;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="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div><div>
<div>14 </div>
<div>a private entity qualifies as a state actor include, for example, when </div>
<div>(1) “the private entity performs a traditional, exclusive public </div>
<div>function<span>”</span><span>; (2) the government has compelled a private ent<span></span>ity<span>’</span><span>s </span></span>
</div>
<div>action; or (3) the government and the private entity act together.<span>  </span>
</div>
<div>Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck<span>,
    587 U.S. 802
    , 809 (2<span></span>019).<span>  </span></span>
</div>
<div>Here, Majersky has failed to allege facts sufficient to find t<span></span>hat </div>
<div>Summerfield and LCM qualify as state actors. </div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>While HOAs make and enforce rules, often provide utilities, </span>
</div>
<div>and may administer land-<span>use regulations, they “are created by </span>
</div>
<div>private contract”<span> and are generally not considered state actors<span>. </span> </span>
</div>
<div>Restatement ch. 6, intro. note.  As private organizations<span>, </span>HOAs </div>
<div>typically do not perform traditional and exclusive public functions.  </div>
<div>See Olson v. Belvedere Ass<span>’</span><span>n</span><span>, No. 2:14-<span>cv</span><span>-527-<span>DK</span></span>-BCW, 2015 WL </span>
</div>
<div>1520911, at *5 (D. Utah Apr. 2, 2015) (unpublished opinion)<span>. </span> Nor </div>
<div>is an HOA a state actor merely because it contacts state officials<span>. </span> </div>
<div>See<span> <span>Jordan v. Simones</span><span>, </span>Civ. A. No. 13-<span>cv</span>-01675-REB-MJW, 2014 </span>
</div>
<div>WL 1133291, at *4-5 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2014) (unpublished opini<span></span>on) </div>
<div>(calling police does not make an HOA a state actor).  Finally, an </div>
<div>HOA<span>’</span><span>s governing documents create contractual, not constitutional, </span>
</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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LPRq8S5CgmfqXTRhsPguDhpDnTM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>15 </div>
<div>rights.</div>
</div>
<div><div>10</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>An</span><span> HOA, <span>as </span>a private entity enforcing private rights on </span>
</div>
<div>private property, may condition eligibility to vote, run in elections, </div>
<div>or use recreational and social facilities on the homeowner<span>’</span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>payment of dues.  <span>See </span>Restatement <span>§§ </span>6.8 cmt. b, 6.17 cmt. a. <span></span> That </div>
<div>is exactly what occurred here.<span>  </span>Because the First and Fourteenth </div>
<div>Amendments do not apply to LCM, we affirm the district court<span>’</span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>orders dismissing Majersky<span>’</span>s constitutional claims.  </div>
<div>D.<span> <span>Unpreserved Claims </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>Majersky also raises numerous claims for the first time in <span></span>his </span>
</div>
<div>opening and reply briefs.<span>  </span>Although we liberally construe pro se </div>
<div>filings, “we do not address arguments made for the first time <span></span>on </div>
<div>appeal,<span>” <span>Minshall v. Johnst<span>on</span><span>,
    2018 COA 44
    , ¶ 21<span>, or</span> issues raised </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>for the first time in a reply brief<span>, </span><span>In re Estate of Liebe</span>,
    2023 COA 55
    , </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>10</div></div>
<div>
<div> A division of this court recently held that HOA forec<span></span>losure notices </div>
<div>must comply with state and federal constitutional due process </div>
<div>requirements.  <span>C &amp; C Invs., LP v. Hummel</span>,
    2022 COA 42
    , <span></span>¶¶ 42, 48.<span>  </span>
</div>
<div>However, foreclosure presents a markedly different situation <span></span>from </div>
<div>the one before us here.  Namely, unlike foreclosure actions, </div>
<div>eligibility to vote in and run for an HOA election does not <span></span>implicate </div>
<div>a constitutionally protected right.<span>  </span><span>See Connecticut v. Doehr</span><span>,</span><span> </span>501 </div>
<div>U.S. 1, 13 (1991) (discussing due process protections in the cont<span></span>ext </div>
<div>of<span> liens, mortgages, and other financial encumbrances); <span>Flagg Bros. </span></span>
</div>
<div>v. Brooks<span>,
    436 U.S. 149
    , 158 (1978) (noting that state action does </span>
</div>
<div>not apply to “<span>private political activity . . . only state-regulated </span>
</div>
<div>elections”). <span>  </span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="#pf10" data-dest-detail='[16,"XYZ",69,269,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:145.653889px;bottom:877.999444px;width:15.660000px;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="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div><div>
<div>16 </div>
<div>¶ 19.  Thus, we do not reach the merits on several of Majersky<span>’</span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>claims<span>, <span>including </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>the illegibility of LCM<span>’</span>s Exhibits A and B;  </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>arguments concerning Uniform Commercial Code </span></span>
</div>
<div>section 4-1-304, C.R.S. 2024 and non-existent CRE </div>
<div>26<span>-26.1;  </span>
</div>
<div>•<span> </span><span>LCM<span>’</span><span>s authority to collect assessment fees;  </span></span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>an argument that Majersky unintentionally agreed to </span></span>
</div>
<div>LCM<span>’</span><span>s motion for summary judgment; and  </span>
</div>
<div>•<span> <span>allegations that LCM committed perjury in its answer </span></span>
</div>
<div>brief by, among other things, mischaracterizing </div>
<div>Lopez<span>’</span><span>s role as Community Manager and failing to </span>
</div>
<div>disclose that Lopez initially accepted his application </div>
<div>for the Board without mentioning his overdue fees.  </div>
<div>E.<span> <span>Attorney Fees  </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> </span><span>LCM requests an award of its attorney fees incurred on appeal </span>
</div>
<div>under section 38-33.3-123(1)(c).<span>  </span>Citing section 13-<span>17</span>-102(6), </div>
<div>C.R.S. 2024, Majersky argues that, as a pro se<span> </span>party, we cannot </div>
<div>impose attorney fees on him unless he <span>“</span>clearly knew or reasona<span></span>bly </div>
<div>should have known” this action was substantially frivolous, </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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP53ZULCL7&amp;Expires=1728846187&amp;Signature=LPRq8S5CgmfqXTRhsPguDhpDnTM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEGoaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIFgXc02LzKTHJLgqqt6NU9fABQPPTYuAxuSFo%2FdixgKmAiAEo1Lc4zHxIffPrQVVFApJkTsnyAINBSBgbxDNAGtBUiq7BQjD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAAaDDkyNjA0MTIwMzkzNSIMAVIrDgDvPPMH7uKbKo8F5I%2FGtmrbxpl3cg7GdOyqSj6Ui%2F%2B9qjbHCILRzZhWnWmt9zyztZ33KInwQVZJdICcSZ2GVrKtYphTQsaE3k%2FPQwPPgei2r%2BrXpoEZ0j72JAs1kxW%2BK1oehVvk64VhJOfMx%2B3jiEKBjNtSNw%2BefksMjZ8V0%2F6Fga2K6BRybBXYC%2BFK4YixN7Uu%2BOjbp6Ro6gluLI1ikLN5FV8PtI9rQ%2FZTpNSBPFWvqkz6P7QsaH3u%2F1%2BgnhDWC%2F1WGUEaAFwrDtfEzAy4G89hKSTtkvj7ciEeFVlK7aOL37NgAcOTFSesCKENa70ZLMHgfdy50UraVXP3hq8cAgCkKXuJafWXISwf3OC81iS%2BNLWts0GRZLni52%2FPJUBBuhKw4%2FQBj1wDMUkNAF0zTwGLPjVDpvES2gjwr1dQrH2oL0P1b9vewrSljJLM%2BXfIffotljuH9NwY8WcRfGXLXxTwZMRfftsQ3w%2BnJmn8NmWL07U4Q2yLeT3lL%2BdQS8qn6RWWQEsz%2FeClQhS5NJ0lC%2FvKvcxp%2FIT5edvalRdGV9hX64iGuHuxTyduLc%2B4%2BwezcKLXJl0OYaAZNgrWt3%2Bt0oM0enr2T3Z0eegx6xiLt1PdiroEqrxNnEvpTBI1uaiiH2S1SIfTVyovDz8ajlQWLIzcLVBL8rVUE%2BBOwrzbxM%2FiUZ33cpsXu0r6r2OWqI%2Bn8FIkrgOx5LZs9klnBqHStYOQuAsmaSHLQA7BLaxJE6UoDu%2FspI0bznzWkodrMiqpEfxZ%2Fm2GYNHeLDdnmdd3ZU6Ci59eQZovs6DHOHTH0hS9n0rGeQAVoUcxMlInytcBm%2B2jWqeQNwg3UY6BF5jfeSNEJCDBoZDaFn9mv%2BEVDze8xiRFCk6Fim2eazCxkrC4BjqyAd3nZLrI0TtYm8oHCUK1AGAIkyF8G2VzfOnw%2B7qjiNSGQIAsUNTKrMTiUWETaJllApI%2FpYvk433TNtSScOyTSJ6U6exVoIuAmI7U7MeXoDi4k09IFyXGLwg7vztw7ukwcMTjpC6B1uLvWHNSw4zjiliInO3d6DSf0aJKcHax0aVIde3cCm3V2ZXdIYUSxHD96P9sft42voSbiH9UOq16NW7HcupK%2B1oZSF9821Vs9mNIwxo%3D"><div>
<div>17 </div>
<div>groundless, or vexatious.<span>  </span>While creative, this argument does not </div>
<div>account for the fact that another statute specifically provides for </div>
<div>attorney fees, so section 13-<span>17</span>-102(6) does not apply.<span>  </span><span>See</span> § 13-<span>17</span>-</div>
<div>106, C.R.S. 2024.  </div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>As the prevailing party, LCM is entitled to reasonable attorney </span>
</div>
<div>fees under section 38-33.3-123(1)(c).</div>
</div>
<div><div>11</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>We exercise our discretion </span>
</div>
<div>under C.A.R. 39.1 and remand the case to the district <span></span>court to </div>
<div>determine the amount of those fees.  Because the district court </div>
<div>stayed its determination of attorney fees incurred in the district </div>
<div>court proceedings<span>, </span>it may determine <span>th</span>ose fees on remand<span>. </span> </div>
<div>V.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>The district court<span>’</span>s order granting summary judgment for LCM </span>
</div>
<div>is affirmed, and the case is remanded<span>. </span> </div>
<div>JUDGE JOHNSON and JUDGE SCHOCK concur. </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>11</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>In</span> a recent amendment to section 38-33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.S.<span></span> 2024, </div>
<div>the legislature added subsections (1)(c)(I) and (1)(c)(II), which </div>
<div>substantially limit attorney fees awards to prevailing HOAs absent a </div>
<div>homeowner<span>’</span><span>s willful failure to comply with the governing </span>
</div>
<div>documents.  <span>See</span> Ch. 422<span>, </span>sec. 1, § 38-33.3-123, 2024 Colo. Sess. </div>
<div>Laws 2881.  These amendments <span>apply to “debts accrued on or aft<span></span>er </span>
</div>
<div>the applicable effective date of this act,” which is <span>August 7, 2024.  </span>
</div>
<div>Sec. 9, 2024 Colo. Sess. Laws at 2887.  Thus, the amendments </div>
<div>apply to any attorney fees LCM accrued on or after August 7, <span></span>2024.  </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf12" data-dest-detail='[18,"XYZ",69,219,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:410.396667px;bottom:667.996667px;width:15.660000px;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></div></div></div>
Leave a Comment

Document Info

Docket Number： 24CA0046

Filed Date： 10/10/2024

Precedential Status： Precedential

Modified Date： 10/13/2024