Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-33.3-112 (2026)

Unconscionable agreement or term of contract

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The court, upon finding as a matter of law that a contract or contract clause relating to a common interest community was unconscionable at the time the contract was made, may refuse to enforce the contract, enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or limit the application of any unconscionable clause in order to avoid an unconscionable result.

(2) Whenever it is claimed, or appears to the court, that a contract or any contract clause relating to a common interest community is or may be unconscionable, the parties, in order to aid the court in making the determination, shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to:

(a) The commercial setting of the negotiations;

(b) Whether the first party has knowingly taken advantage of the inability of the second party reasonably to protect such second party's interests by reason of physical or mental infirmity, illiteracy, or inability to understand the language of the agreement or similar factors;

(c) The effect and purpose of the contract or clause; and

(d) If a sale, any gross disparity at the time of contracting between the amount charged for the property and the value of that property measured by the price at which similar property was readily obtainable in similar transactions. A disparity between the contract price and the value of the property measured by the price at which similar property was readily obtainable in similar transactions does not, of itself, render the contract unconscionable.

Source: L. 91: Entire article added, p. 1709, § 1, effective July 1, 1992. L. 93: (2)(b) amended, p. 643, § 3, effective April 30.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2021 · leading case: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., 395 P.3d 788 (Colo. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condo. Ass'n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., 395 P.3d 788 (Colo. 2017). · cites it 3× “(2016); (2) section 38-33.3-112, C.R.S. (2016), precludes enforcement of unconscionable contract clauses involving common interest communities; and (3) section 38-33.”
Arrabelle at Vail Square Residential Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Arrabelle at Vail Square LLC, 2016 COA 123 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “Accordingly, the trial court’s conclusion in the Phase I Trial order that RECA section 6(b) was unconscionable under section 38-33.3-112, C.R.S. 2015, is appropriate and valid.”
v. Brooks Towers Residences, 2021 COA 87 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “And the provisions of CCIOA that the Accettas claim to have been violated — sections 38-33.3-112, 38-33.3-113, and 38-33.”
Anthony T. ACCETTA & Nancy Accetta v. BROOKS TOWERS RESIDENCES Condo. Ass'n, INC., a Colorado nonprofit Corp. Mark Trenka in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Marla Grant in her Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Bill Clarke in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Clay Courter in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Robb Green in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. & Joan Foster in her Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 506 P.3d 857 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “2021, which requires a declaration to state the formulas used to establish allocations of interests; (2) section 38-33.3-112(1), C.R.S. 2021, which permits a court to refuse to enforce an unconscionable clause in a contract relating to a common interest community; and (3)…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-33.3-112(1): 3 cases
v. Brooks Towers Residences, 2021 COA 87 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “And the provisions of CCIOA that the Accettas claim to have been violated — sections 38-33.3-112, 38-33.3-113, and 38-33.”
Arrabelle at Vail Square Residential Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Arrabelle at Vail Square LLC, 2016 COA 123 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “Accordingly, the trial court’s conclusion in the Phase I Trial order that RECA section 6(b) was unconscionable under section 38-33.3-112, C.R.S. 2015, is appropriate and valid.”
Anthony T. ACCETTA & Nancy Accetta v. BROOKS TOWERS RESIDENCES Condo. Ass'n, INC., a Colorado nonprofit Corp. Mark Trenka in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Marla Grant in her Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Bill Clarke in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Clay Courter in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. Robb Green in his Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc. & Joan Foster in her Off. capacity as a member of the Bd. of Directors of Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 506 P.3d 857 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “2021, which requires a declaration to state the formulas used to establish allocations of interests; (2) section 38-33.3-112(1), C.R.S. 2021, which permits a court to refuse to enforce an unconscionable clause in a contract relating to a common interest community; and (3)…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.