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.