Chad W. Johnson selected as a 2019 Super Lawyers Rising Star in Colorado Construction Litigation

Johnson Law is proud to announce that its founding member, Chad W. Johnson, has been recognized as a 2019 Colorado Super Lawyers Rising Star in construction litigation. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Super Lawyers uses a multifaceted selection process, including nominations, independent research, and peer evaluations. For more information about Super Lawyers, visit

Chad W. Johnson

Rated by Super Lawyers

loading …

New $25,000.00 Colorado County Court Jurisdiction Limit

The Colorado state legislature enacted Senate Bill 18-056, which is new legislation increasing the monetary cap on damages claimed in county court cases from $15,000 to $25,000. This change will be effective for cases filed on or after January 1, 2019. The legislation also changes the court’s filing fees, which are now based on levels established by the amount of damages being claimed. For example, a claim less than $1,000 is subject to a filing fee of $85; a claim of $1,000 or more but less than $15,000 is subject to a filing fee of $105; and a claim of $15,000 or more but less than $25,000 is subject to a filing fee of $135. These examples are for claims brought by a plaintiff. The legislation also changes the filing fees in responding to claims and asserting counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims.

The increase in monetary value of damages for county court cases will likely allow more claimants to access the judicial system while avoiding the expensive and formal rules associated with cases brought in district court. The $25,000 threshold means that individuals who are seeking to recover damages of $25,000 or less can file in county court. This amount is exclusive of costs and attorney fees. If a claim for breach of contract is alleged and the contract includes an attorney fees provision, the attorney fees are not calculated in the total amount of the claim for jurisdictional purposes. The new $25,000 threshold also applies to lien foreclosure and forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer cases where the monthly rental value of the property does not exceed $25,000.

One major advantage of filing a case in county court versus district court is that cases are more likely to reach trial or resolution quicker than in district court. Further, pretrial procedure is less onerous in county court. For example, discovery such as written discovery, depositions, and expert disclosures, can be a costly phase of the case. See Johnson Law’s prior blog post “What is Litigation?” posted March 26, 2018 for a more detailed discussion on discovery and the phases of a case. Unlike in district court where a party is entitled to presumptive limits on discovery, in county court a party must request the court order discovery.

This legislation improves access to the judicial system and helps many parties seeking to recover damages without incurring costly legal fees associated with district court. If you have a legal question, please contact your qualified and specialized Colorado Construction Defect Lawyers at Johnson Law today to discuss your case.

Residential Property Under CDARA

Colorado homeowners benefit from a provision to the Colorado Construction Defect ActionReform Act (“CDARA”) called the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 (“HPA”). TheHPA renders contractual provisions that limit or waive CDARA’s rights andremedies void as against public policy when construction defect claims arise ata residential property.

In Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann, 413 P.3d 219 (Colo. App. 2017), the Colorado Court of Appeals interpreted CDARA’s definition of residential property. The case involved construction of a senior living community. The construction contract included warranty provisions that required the owner to promptly notify the contractor of any defects or else the owner waived the right to require correction or make a claim for breach of warranty. The contract also defined when claims accrued for defective work that contradicted CDARA’s statute of limitations by shortening the time to bring claims.

The building’s owner brought construction defect claims against the contractor. The contractor moved for summary judgment alleging the owner’s claims were barred by the contractual provisions limiting the time claims for construction defect could be brought. The court granted summary judgment and the owner appealed.

The building’s owner claimed the HPA voided the contractual provisions limiting the time it had to bring construction defect claims against the contractor. The contractor argued the HPA did not apply because the building was a commercial entity, not a residential property. In using the cannons of statutory interpretation, the court applied the plain meaning of residence to mean a structure where people live. The court also relied on the fact the facility was zoned for multi-family residential use. The court went further by applying property tax law that defined residential real property as all residential dwelling units and related land excluding motels and hotels. The court concluded that residential property under CDARA means the improvement on a parcel that is used as a dwelling or for living. The building at issue was used to house senior residents and, therefore, was a residential property and the HPA applied.

Because the Homeowner Protection Act applied, it voided the construction contract’s provisions limiting accrual of the owner’s construction defect claims. Instead, the court ruled CDARA’s statute of limitations period applied and the owner’s claims accrued upon discovery of the physical manifestations of a defect.

Broomfield Senior Living expanded the types of properties protected under the Homeowner Protection Act. Even though the building was operated commercially, it was a building where seniors lived and therefore was a residential property under CDARA. Properties operating commercially but used for residential purposes, like mobile home parks, in-patient treatment facilities, and apartment buildings, may benefit from the Homeowner Protection Act by applying the court’s reasoning in Broomfield Senior Living.

As experienced construction defect lawyers, the attorneys at Johnson Law regularly litigate the scope of the homeowner protection act. Call the attorneys at Johnson Law for a consultation on your construction defect case.

Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute – Franklin Drilling v. Lawrence Construction

Colorado law requires contractors to hold funds in trust for the payment of subcontractors, laborers, or material suppliers who have furnished services connected to a construction project or who may have a lien against the property. C.R.S. § 38-22-127(1). This Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund statute requires contractors to maintain separate accounting for each project and violations of the statute amount to civil theft pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-4-401. For example, when a contractor receives funds for work at Construction Project Y and uses those funds to pay subcontractors on Construction Project Z, the contractor has violated the trust fund statute. Treble damages and attorney fees may be awarded for violations of the trust fund statute.

Substantially similar to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund statute, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently analyzed the Public Works Trust Fund statute that applies to government funds received on public works projects. C.R.S. § 38-26-109. The issue in Franklin Drilling v. Lawrence Construction, 2018COA59, was when does a violation of the trust fund statute result in civil theft liability? Id. at ¶ 16. The court held that exhausting funds paid to a contractor prior to payment of a subcontractor constitutes a violation of the Public Works Trust Fund statute and may constitute civil theft. Id. ¶ 29.

Specifically, the court reasoned that a “res” (or an identifiable thing) is created when payment is made to the contractor that must be held in trust for the subcontractors. Id. at ¶ 26. A violation of the trust fund statute may be established by evidence the “res” was exhausted prior to payment to subcontractors. Id. The concept of payment constituting a “res” that is to be held in trust is necessary for the operation of the trust fund statute, otherwise the statute is frustrated and rendered ineffective to meet its legislative purpose. Id. at ¶ 28.

In residential or commercial construction projects where an owner pays a contractor for a construction project and the contractor fails to pay the subcontractors, a violation of the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund statute may be triggered. Applying the court’s reasoning in Franklin, when a contractor knowingly uses the “res” for other purposes instead of holding the funds in trust for payment to subcontractors, this evidences a violation of the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund statute and the requisite mental state for civil theft. Support for a claim of a trust fund violation requires evidence that the “res” is exhausted or depleted prior to issuance of subcontractor payments.

When a construction project goes bad it not only includes construction defects that fall under the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”), it may also involve violations of the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund statute. The Franklin case provides guidance to practitioners in establishing claims for trust fund violation. Thus, practitioners should consider including claims for violations of the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund statute when payments are made to the contractor, but subcontractors or materialmen are threatening to lien the project or claiming nonpayment. Furthermore, practitioners should seek discovery into the contractor’s bank accounts to uncover how deposits made for one project, or the “res,” were held in trust for that construction project.

If you have any questions, please contact Johnson Law’s team of attorneys for a free consultation regarding construction defect claims under the CDARA, mechanic’s lien claims, and mechanic’s lien trust fund claims.

Are Developers successfully avoiding construction defect liability?

Anyone driving around downtown Denver can see the multiple cranes dotting the skyline. Construction is booming in Colorado as people are moving to this beautiful state. Rents are increasing and opportunities to purchase starter homes are dwindling. As luxury apartments continue being developed throughout the metro area, some argue there is a shortage of affordable options of single-family homes and townhomes for young professionals and families.

One common question many people have is: Are developers building apartments to only later sell those apartments as condos in an effort to avoid Colorado’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”)?

On its face this may appear to be a legitimate business approach to avoiding construction defect litigation, but such approach presents many complex issues that have yet to be determined.

The Statute of Limitations requires a homeowner to bring claims against a construction professional within two years of the physical manifestations of a construction defect. Colorado’s Statute of Repose establishes that construction defect claims cannot be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement. One exception is if the construction defect is discovered in the fifth or sixth year, the State of Repose is extended by two years from the date of discovery.

In theory, a Developer can build residential units and hold on to them until the State of Repose runs, which would effectively time-bar any claims for deficient construction. Once the Statute of Repose expires, some may argue the Developer can then sell the units without the liability of potential construction defect claims by future homeowners.

However, a Developer must take careful consideration with this approach. Does the project have adequate funds available for repairing and replacing various building components such as windows, doors, and other common elements? Has the Developer set aside any funds during the first six years for general maintenance and capital improvements once a homeowners’ association is formed and takes over? How would a rental apartment turned into an owner-occupied condominium affect market prices in both rental and real estate markets?

How does retaining ownership to avoid construction defect claims compare with the prohibition of using the State of Limitations as a defense by a person who is in possession and control of the improvement that causes damage to property? What disclosures will the Developer need to make to future homeowners for repairs that were made to the building, unit, or common elements during the Developer’s ownership?

These questions and others present difficult issues to consider for Developers who seek to avoid liability under the CDARA. The easiest and best way to avoid construction defect litigation is to build a good product and address any problems early and completely.

If you have questions about your home, please call the lawyers at Johnson Law for a consultation on the facts specific to your case.


Johnson Law to Present at the 12th Annual Colorado Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference on November 2, 2018

Johnson Law is proud to announce that attorney Tessa R. DeVault has joined the faculty of the 12th Annual Colorado ADR Conference. Tessa will present on recent reported cases from across the U.S. that exemplify a trend where mediation becomes the source of additional litigation instead of a form of alternative dispute resolution. As more courts require mediation at some point during litigation, this presentation explores those cases where the mediation and/or following settlements furthered instead of settled the dispute between the parties. The presentation
identifies pitfalls to avoid and offers practical advice to both mediators and litigators in achieving successful mediations.

The Colorado ADR Conference is an annual gathering of attorneys and non-attorneys discussing current changes and developments in alternative dispute resolution. The conference is a live
seminar held on November 2, 2018 located at the Renaissance Hotel, 3801 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207 in the Stapleton neighborhood.

To register or find out more about the Colorado Bar Association CLE – 12th Annual Colorado ADR Conference please click here or contact Tessa DeVault at 303.586.4829 or

Johnson Law is seeking to add another attorney to the team


We are a busy boutique law office focusing on construction defect law, general construction law, and real estate nondisclosure seeking a full-time attorney for its Denver or Louisville office.

Responsibilities include:

  • Draft pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions and trial preparation
  • Client coordination from intake through trial
  • Defend and take depositions
  • 1st chair smaller cases and second chair larger cases


  • Strong attention to detail
  • Admission to Colorado bar
  • 4+ years litigation experience
  • Significant past deposition experience
  • Some past trial experience
  • Experience in the substantive law of construction defect, general construction, and/or real estate nondisclosure
  • Our office strives to be paperless, uses Mac OS, Clio, and other cloud technology, so familiarity with technology is crucial

We might be a good fit if you are someone who:

  • Is energetic and a self-starter, has great organization skills and superior customer service
  • Is comfortable working both independently and in a team
  • Has time management skills to organize, multi-task, prioritize assignments and complete tasks under pressure due to workload volume and changing demands
  • Has great attention to detail

What we offer:

  • A flexible work schedule with ability to telecommute
  • A health care benefits plan
  • A retirement plan with matching contributions
  • A comfortable, collaborative, and friendly work environment
  • A salary commensurate with your experience
  • The ability to earn bonuses beyond your salary

We are committed to giving every client outstanding customer service, exceeding their expectations by being helpful, friendly, and having a positive attitude. If you share our commitment then we want to hear from you. Qualified candidates should respond with their resume and cover letter with salary requirements to

Colorado Court of Appeals Addresses CDARA Notice of Claim Process in Curry v. Zag Built

The Colorado Court of Appeals recently issued new guidance on the notice of claim process and statute of limitations under the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act, C.R.S. §§ 13-20-801 et seq. (“CDARA”).

In Curry v. Zag Built, LLC, 2018COA66, the Court of Appeals addressed, among other issues, the effects of filing a case before completing the notice of claim process required under CDARA. The Court of Appeals held the notice of claim process is not a prerequisite to filing a case in court. The court further held that when applying CDARA’s stay provision, a case commences when the plaintiff files the complaint.

Zag Built, LLC built the Currys’ home in July 2013. By January 2014, the Currys noticed damage to the home including drywall cracks and racked or sagging doors. The Currys filed suit in June 2015, but did not initially serve their claims on Zag Built.

The Currys filed a status report with the trial court in September 2015 stating they filed their complaint to preserve the statute of limitations, they retained an expert to investigate the claims, and requested additional time to engage in the notice of claim process. Without response from the trial court, the Currys filed an updated status report in March 2016 stating their expert completed the investigation, they would continue pursuing the notice of claim process, and they would serve Zag Built within 90 days if the notice of claim process proved futile.

In mid-May 2016, the Currys again updated the trial court stating they had sent notices of claim, but Zag Built had not requested an inspection. The Currys filed an amended complaint in conjunction with the status report and then served Zag Built in late May 2016.

In July 2017, Zag Built filed a motion for summary judgment alleging the statute of limitations had run on the Curry’s claims because they had not complied with CDARA’s notice of claim process within two years of their claims having accrued. Zag Built also argued the Curry’s complaint filed in June 2015 did not commence the case for purposes of a stay under CDARA because Zag Built was not served the June 2015 complaint.

The trial court denied the motion holding the Curry’s claims were automatically stayed under CDARA until the notice of claim process was completed. Completion of the notice of claim process was determined by the trial court to have occurred in mid-April 2016 after the notice of claim was sent to Zag Built and Zag Built had not requested inspection. The trial court also held the Curry’s claims were not time-barred because they filed their complaint within the two-year statute of limitations. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The basis of Zag Built’s argument was that the notice of claim process is both a prerequisite to filing a claim in court and the only way to toll the statute of limitations under CDARA. Zag Built argued the statute of limitations did not stop running because the notice of claim process had not been completed, even though a complaint was filed. Thus, because the Currys filed their complaint before completing the notice of claim process, Zag Built argued the statute of limitations continued to run on their claims. By the time the Currys completed the notice of claim process in January 2016, Zag Built argued more than two years had passed since the Currys first noticed damage in January 2014 and the statute of limitations barred their claims.

Notably, the Court of Appeals decided that § 13-20-803.5(9) creates an automatic stay that prevents litigation from progressing until the court lifts the stay. The stay is mandatory and applies to all aspects of a case, including the Currys’ obligation to serve Zag Built. The case resumes where it left off once the stay is lifted.

The opinion discusses two important distinctions regarding procedure in construction defect cases. First, the Court of Appeals stated the automatic stay began when the Currys filed a status report notifying the trial court the notice of claim process had not been completed. Practically speaking, the opinion suggests the parties can simply notify the trial court that the mandatory stay applies while the parties complete the notice of claim process. Therefore, counsel arguably does not need to request a stay by filing a motion but can merely notify the court the mandatory stay is engaged. If the trial court does not respond with a position on the stay, it is reasonable for counsel to inform the court after the notice of claim process is completed to effectively end the stay and resume the case.

Second, the Court of Appeals stated the notice of claim process can be shortened from the prescribed statutory timeframes. Zag Built had thirty days to inspect the subject property upon service of the notice of claim pursuant to § 13-20-803.5(2). Because Zag Built did not request an inspection, the Court of Appeals says the notice of claim process ended at the expiration of Zag Built’s statutory time to request the inspection. Therefore, CDARA’s established 75-day timeframe (90-days for commercial properties) to complete the notice of claim process can arguably be ended by the parties. Under this rationale, a contractor who receives a notice of claim can then immediately terminate the process.

The opinion supports plaintiff’s counsel who have time constraints by allowing them to file their complaint to preserve the statute of limitations and then investigate their claims. What remains unknown is how courts will treat CDARA’s automatic stay for claims filed to preserve the statute of limitations by, for example, setting forth time limits on the stay or requiring parties to file regular status updates. What also remains is how the notice of claim process will be affected by the actions of one party to prematurely end a statutorily prescribed timeframe.


Johnson Law Attends CWBA Convention

Attorney Tessa R. DeVault represented Johnson Law by attending the 41st Annual Colorado Women’s Bar Association’s (“CWBA”) “Wonder Women” Convention in Vail, Colorado. Tessa is a proud member of the CWBA’s Mountain Chapter for attorneys who live or work in Eagle, Summit, Lake, Clear Creek, Garfield, Pitkin, and Park Counties. Johnson Law proudly serves all of Colorado’s communities from the Western Slope to the Front Range with offices in Edwards, Denver, and Louisville.  Attending legal conventions connects our attorneys to the legal networks needed to provide excellent services to our clients across the state.

This year’s CWBA Convention focused on the big and small ways women lawyers are superheroes to their clients and their communities. Diversity and Inclusiveness were strong themes throughout the programming that spanned over three days of lectures, roundtable discussions, and workshops.

Keynote speaker Ms. Paulette Brown addressed the audience on the topic of Champions and Mindset Power. Paulette was the first woman of color to lead the American Bar Association in its 137-year history and is a nationally recognized leader and top lawyer.

Her keynote address identified the female attorney as the “24-hour woman” – one who balances the challenges of being a lawyer, the demands in maintaining a home life, and serves as a leader within her community. Paulette shared her successes in forming the American Bar Association’s Diversity and Inclusion 360 Commission, which effectuates policies aimed at dismantling barriers to inclusion and diversity while economically empowering diverse attorneys. Other highlights from her presentation were when she reminded the group that well-behaved women rarely make history, and she challenged women attorneys to identify where they want to be in history, what they want their contribution to be within the justice system, and then to write down their personal and professional plans in order to achieve them. The presentation ended with Paulette telling the group to “own your greatness.”

Following the inspiring work of Paulette was Denver’s own Dr. Nita Mosby Tyler. Dr. Mosby Tyler founded The Equity Project, LLC – an organization designed to support organizations and communities in building diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies. Her presentation was entitled: Using Your Power: Incorporating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion into Everyday Life. The presentation started by identifying the phenomenon of “diversity fatigue” – feelings of exhaustiveness from discussing diversity.

Dr. Mosby Tyler presented on the differences between equity, diversity, and inclusiveness by describing equity as the umbrella of everything we are doing. Equity is the creation of systems where everyone can thrive and people have what they need. Diversity is the richness and beauty of the differences between all of us. Inclusion is an intentional action of what you do with diversity. Inclusion should be a win/win for all involved. Attorneys carry the responsibility and power to include those who are otherwise socially excluded. The strongest leaders are those who have expertise and mutual respect for others. Dr. Mosby Tyler ended her presentation by challenging the group to take responsibility to be the crafters of new doors that lead to equity.

The CWBA’s mission is to promote women in the legal profession and the interests of women generally. The Colorado Construction Attorneys at Johnson Law are involved in many organizations that provide a strong network of resources and connections for all types of legal issues. Johnson Law is proud to be part of a legal community serving the diverse interests of Coloradoans throughout the state.

For more information on the Colorado Women’s Bar Association or any of the speakers mentioned, please contact Tessa DeVault at

Arbitration: A Process Different from State or Federal Court

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution that is agreed upon by the parties. Instead of bringing a case into the state or federal courts, parties may agree to select a third-party neutral to determine the outcome of their dispute. An agreement to arbitrate is often a contractual obligation. We often see this at our firm in the form of builder contracts that include an arbitration clause. The typical builder arbitration clause requires the parties to submit all disputes to arbitration regardless if it is a payment dispute, breach of contract, construction defect, fraud, CCPA, or other claims.  However, parties may agree to arbitrate a dispute independent of a contract.

Arbitration is different from the court system is several ways. Arbitration can be faster and cheaper, but the arbitration decision is final. Colorado courts encourage and favor agreements to arbitrate. Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006). Arbitration tends to be less formal than court and can be tailored to the needs of individual cases.

First, the parties select their arbiter, the person who will decide the case. Arbiters are often other lawyers or retired judges, but the parties are not restricted to selecting an arbiter within the legal profession. Several arbitration groups exist like the Judicial Arbiter Group (JAG) and the American Arbitration Association (AAA). This means there is no jury; only the arbiter (or sometimes a panel of arbiters) decides the dispute.

Another major difference between arbitration and court is that the parties must pay for the arbiter’s time. A state or federal court judge is not a private entity and serves the public and all cases that fall within the court’s jurisdiction.

Even though the parties must pay for the arbitration, the total cost of an arbitration can be less expensive than a court case. There are generally fewer trial days and appearances with the arbiter before trial, and therefore, less attorney fees. Arbitration also reduces costs because there are no juries and attorneys present the case to the arbiter who is already familiar with the subject matter of the dispute.

A case brought in arbitration can generally be resolved quicker than cases brought before a court judge. One reason is arbiters handle less cases than judges, and therefore, have more flexibility to schedule trial. Another reason is the parties and the arbiter can decide the rules they would like to follow. For court cases, there are specific and strict rules for case deadlines and obligations of the parties. In arbitration, the parties may elect the deadlines and obligations of the parties that are best suited for their individual case. For example, AAA has different types of arbitrations with different rules.

Last, but not least, one of the most important distinctions between arbitration and the court system is that the arbiter’s decision is final and non-appealable. For example, a court decision or jury verdict can be appealed to a higher court allowing one party to argue an error occurred that rendered the outcome incorrect. Overturning an arbitration award is difficult. An arbiter’s final decision can be vacated upon a court order, including, but not limited to, the award resulted from corruption or fraud; there was misconduct by the arbiter; a party’s rights were substantially prejudiced. C.R.S. § 13-22-223.

This blog post goes over the generalities of arbitration, but each arbitration provision is different, and sometimes the arbitration provision in your contract may be unenforceable or void. If you have specific questions about arbitration or any legal matter, Johnson Law’s attorneys are available to discuss your case with you and we look forward to hearing from you.