Real estate disclosure requirements

     For our real estate agent and broker friends - or anyone thinking to sell or buy - an informative article appeared in the July/August 2024 edition of the Colorado Lawyer, entitled "Disclosure of Adverse Material Facts and Latent Defects in Real Estate Transactions."

     It discusses at length and summarizes disclosure duties connected with real estate transactions in the state, including "adverse material facts" (environmental hazards, zoning violations, structural issues, health risks, etc.) actually known, and "latent defects" (concealed water damage, soil conditions, environmental contamination, (maybe?) lack of building permits, etc.).

     Material issues noted in an inspection report following a failed transaction should be disclosed to buyers and sellers.  There is no duty to conduct independent investigations or verify inspector information.  "Matters of public record" generally are exempt from disclosure requirements. 

     Violations are enforced by the Colorado Real Estate Commission and/or via state court lawsuits seeking money damages claiming nondisclosure or concealment, negligence, and breach of contract, among others.

     Of course, there are numerous exceptions and nuances, and experienced legal advice should be sought for particulars.  Call or email us here at Sanderson Law, P.C., if you'd like help or more information.  We handle cases in Colorado and Wyoming.

Driver's license points suspension

Adult Colorado drivers accumulating 12 points in one or 18 in two years will get up to a one year  suspension notice from the state.  Carefully review CRS 42-2-127 for particulars and exceptions.  

Make sure timely to request the hearing you're entitled to, as you may be eligible for a probationary license, or a shorter suspension.  Last checked the phone number was 303-205-5606.

Also, because the rules and statutes change often, you never know what may come out of the hearing.  Have your lawyer attend with you.  Most everything with DMV is virtual, including the hearings.

The hearing officer may ask you questions under oath so be prepared, including whether you've been driving when you weren't supposed to be.  The hearing officer is looking for aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the suspension and terms.  Good behavior, completing requirements, and employment, education and health needs, usually are relevant.

The hearing officer will send out a written order, which is appealable.

 

Unanimously rejected. What does it mean?

Richard Gabriel, Melissa Hart, William Hood, Monica Marquez.  These are the four Colorado supreme court judges who, on the eve of Christmas 2023, nearly excluded millions of Colorado voters - and jolted the 2024 election process - by deciding to exclude the leading candidate from the upcoming presidential ballot.  Recognizing the obvious threat to democracy, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court swiftly reversed and rejected that effort.  See Trump v. Anderson, decided 3/4/24.

A unanimous and unusually quick decision from the nation's politically diverse highest court might suggest one of two things:  Either the Colorado judges are not very smart lawyers OR they acted from biased political motives.  I suppose it could be both.  For sure the U.S. Supreme Court's swift action confirms the four Colorado judges made a BIG and DANGEROUS mistake.  

Confidence in Colorado's highest court - as currently comprised - is damaged beyond repair.  Why?  Who wants judges that act out of ignorance or bias, especially the state's highest judges?  If they just didn't understand what they were doing, or overlooked legal authority to the contrary (or not existing), or mistakenly read the law, or ignored the potential huge negative consequences of their decision, they probably are not the best qualified for the job.  

If they had doubts about whether precedent adequately supported their democracy threatening decision (remember three of the judges on the same court loudly dissented), or just weren't sure if it was the right decision, they should have erred on the side of NOT disenfranchising millions of voters!  

If they decided the case to keep a candidate they dislike from being elected, they're not impartially deciding cases on the merits, as normally required.  The lady holding the scales of justice is blindfolded for a reason!  These judges are supposed to uphold our constitutional rights, our democracy, and otherwise protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of politics.

Every year thousands of folks in Colorado ask this same Colorado high court to review their case.  Many of these folks unjustly languish in prison, have had children taken away, face devastating judgments, or seek relief from other horrendous consequences.  The court accepts roughly less than 10% to review (and then reverses nearly half of them).  The U.S. Supreme Court faces even more pressures and demands from people in need.  Why did these four Colorado judges decide this case so badly?  Even the most liberal justices on the U.S. court joined in as if to say "duh!" in stopping the Colorado court.

The Colorado court's decision, threatening the very basis of democracy - the right of the People (not a few judges!) to pick their government - will be a longtime embarrassment to many Coloradoans including those practicing law in the state.  Hopefully, if they don't resign before then (the truly honorable thing to do), Colorado voters will send these four - Gabriel, Hart, Hood & Marquez - back to a more private practice of the law.

Politics trumps justice?

             The unsigned decision disqualifying Trump from Colorado’s 2024 ballot confirms what experienced litigants know – politics often trumps justice. 

Whether you like Trump or not, the contentious 4-3 decision rests on weak factual grounds, shaky legal theory, and no compelling authority, and warrants anticipated closer review by the U.S. Supreme Court (which the decision's majority seems to dare).  

Three of the court’s seven judges (usually called justices at the supreme court level) dissented, that is, disagreed formally (and vehemently and at length), including its chief justice.  In sum, they object to the lack of required due process.  It was like using traffic court to convict for murder.  Excerpts follow:

“My opinion that [the case against Trump should have been dismissed] is dictated by the facts … particularly the absence of a criminal conviction ...  The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the [claim against Trump] overwhelmed the process. In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action ….”  Chief Justice Boatright

“I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom. In my experience, in our adversarial system of justice, parties are always allowed to conduct discovery [i.e. learn ahead of time about each other’s claims and evidence], subpoena documents and compel witnesses, and adequately prepare for trial, and experts are never permitted to usurp the role of the judge by opining on how the law should be interpreted and applied. …  [H]ow can we expect Coloradans to embrace this outcome as fair?”  Justice Samour

“Setting aside the factual questions, an insurrection challenge is necessarily going to involve complex legal questions of the type that no district court—no matter how hard working—could resolve in a summary proceeding.  And that’s to say nothing of the appellate deadline. Three days to appeal a district court’s order regarding a challenge to a candidate’s age? Sure. But a challenge to whether a former President engaged in insurrection by inciting a mob to breach the Capitol and prevent the peaceful transfer of power? I am not convinced this is what the General Assembly had in mind.”  Justice Berkenkotter

Sadly, the one judge majority apparently lacked the courage or courtesy to have its author sign the decision, dodging 2 million plus Colorado Trump voters.  In other words, one unknown judge disenfranchised all those folks.  This is even more stunning given this bench's recent public infatuation with so called Diversity Equity and Inclusion. 

Democracy doesn't work like that, and should be remembered next time all 4 majority justices - Richard Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Marquez, William Hood - are up for re-election/retention.

The case is Anderson v. Griswold, 23SA300, 2023 CO 63 (12/19/23).

Operating an equine business

Riding lessons, horse training, shows, boarding or leasing at your horse property, this article discusses 5 steps to minimize risk and maximize success.

First is to make sure the property and facilities are well and timely maintained, in good repair, uncluttered, tidy and safe.

Second is signage.  When in doubt, post signs for visitors to read.  The main one is the equine activities waiver found at Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 13-21-119.  Others could be no outside dogs off leash, no petting/feeding animals not your own, "this horse bites," no alcohol etc.  Designate clear parking and trailer turn around areas.  

Third is to have signed and dated paperwork in place amounting to liability waivers/releases and hold harmless/indemnification agreements.   Everyone participating or attending should be asked to complete the forms.  Organize and keep hard copies on file.  

Fourth is paperwork confirming duties, responsibilities, expectations and obligations of the relevant parties.  For example, boarding agreements should specify who does what when and who is on the hook for injuries, vet bills, transportation, feed, tack, stall maintenance, daily care etc.  It should specify who is responsible for maintaining adequate damage, injury and liability insurance (usually the horse owner).  The more that is specified in writing the better.  Same for visiting trainers and the like, including who is responsible for matching horse and rider.  Keep it well organized, updated and in hardcopy files too.

Fifth is to (re)consider how the facilities are owned/operated and insured.  Some kind of corporate format may be best as it provides another layer of protection and organization.  Follow corporate formalities to maximize protection.  Tax, accountant and insurance professionals should be consulted.  If you have an insurance agent, ask him/her what equine activities are covered and not covered.  Supplement insurance as recommended.

Sanderson Law, P.C., is here to help.  303-444-8846.

Colorado firearms transfers - some exceptions

Colorado mandates "background checks" for private firearms transfers, i.e., two people buying or selling or gifting a gun.  No surprise the background check requires a fee, in addition to paperwork (including nonsensical questions on the background check form itself) and creeping government oversight.

There are exceptions (buried in the legislation, for example CRS 18-12-112(6)).  One excludes "antique firearms."  What is an antique firearm?   Colorado incorporates the federal definition at 18 USC 921(a)(3) & (16), which is "any firearm ... manufactured in or before 1898" or replica thereof, and muzzleloaders.

Other exceptions include a gift between "immediate" family members, transfers relating to a will or trust, and various "temporary" transfers.

Failure to comply carries criminal and civil liability consequences (ironic since people who use guns to commit crimes tend not to care about such things).

On being pulled over by police...

It happens to all drivers sooner or later.  A flashing cop car shows up in your rearview mirror.  Now what?

First, quickly but safely pull over.  Use your signal and keep it on.  Keep your vehicle running and wait for the cop to approach your window.  Keep your seatbelt on, turn off the radio.

Next, roll down your window half-way, say hello, and wait for the cop to initiate the conversation.  Be polite, very polite.  No sudden movements.  

Don't answer questions relating to potential criminal activity, like Do you know why I pulled you over, Do you know how fast the speed limit is, Have you been drinking, etc.  Instead, ask the cop if he'd like to see your driver's license, insurance and registration.  Ask if this is a good place to pull over, if you should turn off your car.

Don't agree to anything you don't have to, like a search of the car, or roadside sobriety tests.  If unsure, ask him if you have to do any of the things he is asking you.  If not, don't do it.  If it's an order, do it.  Remain polite.  Keep a smile but don't look foolish.

As soon as he stops asking you questions etc., ask if you are free to leave, for your license etc. back, and thank him for doing his job.  Volunteer no information, and slowly be on your way as soon as possible.  

Assume you cannot talk your way out of a ticket.  Talking only makes it worse.  The cop is not there to chat.  If he gives you a ticket, take it politely without reading it and, if he says its ok, be on your way.  Don't argue, or get angry.

Next day, calendar the court date, and call a lawyer.  Tickets generally can be pled down to something more acceptable, and may be worth challenging (or at least having a lawyer look it over).