(1) Any person whose real or personal property is affected by a recorded or filed lien or document that the person believes is a spurious lien or spurious document may petition the district court in the county or city and county in which the lien or document was recorded or filed or the federal district court in Colorado for an order to show cause why the lien or document should not be declared invalid. The petition shall set forth a concise statement of the facts upon which the petition is based and shall be supported by an affidavit of the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney. The order to show cause may be granted ex parte and shall:
(a) Direct any lien claimant and any person who recorded or filed the lien or document to appear as respondent before the court at a time and place certain not less than fourteen days nor more than twenty-one days after service of the order to show cause why the lien or document should not be declared invalid and why such other relief provided for by this section should not be granted;
(b) State that, if the respondent fails to appear at the time and place specified, the spurious lien or spurious document will be declared invalid and released; and
(c) State that the court shall award costs, including reasonable attorney fees, to the prevailing party.
(2) If, following the hearing on the order to show cause, the court determines that the lien or document is a spurious lien or spurious document, the court shall make findings of fact and enter an order and decree declaring the spurious lien or spurious document and any related notice of lis pendens invalid, releasing the recorded or filed spurious lien or spurious document, and entering a monetary judgment in the amount of the petitioner's costs, including reasonable attorney fees, against any respondent and in favor of the petitioner. A certified copy of such order may be recorded or filed in the office of any state or local official or employee, including the clerk and recorder of any county or city and county and the Colorado secretary of state.
(3) If, following the hearing on the order to show cause, the court determines that the lien or document is not a spurious lien or spurious document, the court shall issue an order so finding and enter a monetary judgment in the amount of any respondent's costs, including reasonable attorney fees, against any petitioner and in favor of the respondent.
Source: L. 97: Entire part added, p. 37, § 1, effective March 20. L. 2012: (1)(a) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 895, § 170, effective July 1.
Editor's note: Section 38-22.5-110 states that this section applies to liens asserted pursuant to article 22.5 of this title.
ARTICLE 35.5 Nondisclosure of Information Psychologically Impacting Real Property 38-35.5-101. Circumstances psychologically impacting real property - no duty for broker or salesperson to disclose. (1) Facts or suspicions regarding circumstances occurring on a parcel of property which could psychologically impact or stigmatize such property are not material facts subject to a disclosure requirement in a real estate transaction. Such facts or suspicions include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) That an occupant of real property is, or was at any time suspected to be, infected or has been infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or diagnosed with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), or any other disease which has been determined by medical evidence to be highly unlikely to be transmitted through the occupancy of a dwelling place; or
(b) That the property was the site of a homicide or other felony or of a suicide.
(2) No cause of action shall arise against a real estate broker or salesperson for failing to disclose such circumstance occurring on the property which might psychologically impact or stigmatize such property. Source: L. 91: Entire article added, p. 1636, § 20, effective July 1.
ARTICLE 35.7 Disclosures Required in Connection with Conveyances of Residential Real Property
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
Egelhoff v. Taylor, 312 P.3d 270 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
Egelhoff v. Taylor, 312 P.3d 270 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 13× “Opinion by JUDGE CASEBOLT ¶ 1 Defendant, Lesley Joe Taylor, appeals the judgment declaring his putative lien against the property of plaintiff, Martin Foster Egelhoff, invalid under section 38-35-204, C.R.S.2012, the "Spurious Liens and Documents" statute.”
Tuscany, LLC v. W. States Excavating Pipe & Boring, LLC, 128 P.3d 274 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “In response, Tuscany brought this action challenging the liens and requested a show cause hearing under § 38-35-204, C.R.S.2004. Although BCORP had commenced a separate action, the trial court allowed it to join in Tusceany's request for a hearing.”
Hewitt v. Rice, 154 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 3× “section 38-35-204(1)-(2) authorizes an action to expunge a `spurious' notice of lis pendens, and award the costs and attorneys fees associated with such an action to the prevailing party.”
SR Condos., LLC v. K.C. Constr., Inc., 176 P.3d 866 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “The court also concluded that SR Condominiums was entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 38-35-204. On January 12, 2006, after the time for filing an appeal had expired, K.”
Wester Holdings P'ship v. Reece, 991 P.2d 328 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 12× “Reece, was not a “spurious document” for purposes of § 38-35-204, C.R.S.1999. Plaintiff also appeals the award of attorney fees to defendant.”
Sifton v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 259 P.3d 542 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 10× “This case presents an unresolved question of Colorado law: If a respondent releases a contested lien or document before the show cause hearing under section 38-35-204 of the Spurious Liens and Documents statute, seetion 38-35-201, et seq.”
Baked, LLC v. GJG Prop., LLC, 2020 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 17× “Appellants are responsible for providing an adequate record on appeal; when an appellant fails to provide a transcript of a hearing, “we presume that the court’s ruling declaring the lien invalid [under section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 298 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “2009, under section 38-35-204, C.R.S.2009, and based on slander of title.”
Kerns v. Kerns, 53 P.3d 1157 (Colo. 2002).
· cites it 5× “In addition to the action to quiet title brought in the Larimer County District Court, Respondent also filed a motion in the Minnesota action requesting that the court declare notices of lis pendens filed by Petitioners against the Idaho ranch {acilities null and void.”
Battle North, LLC v. Sensible Hous. Co., 370 P.3d 238 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “- § 38-35-204(1). The statute then provides an expedited procedure whereby the court issues an order to show ecause to the respondent (the entity which recorded or filed the allegedly spurious lien or- document); the respondent responds to the order to show cause; an evidentiary…”
v. Evans, 2019 COA 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 11× “He argued that the Abstract must be removed from the Douglas County real property records under the procedure set forth in section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-204(1) — 7 cases
Hewitt v. Rice, 154 P.3d 408 (Colo. 2007).
“section 38-35-204(1)-(2) authorizes an action to expunge a `spurious' notice of lis pendens, and award the costs and attorneys fees associated with such an action to the prevailing party.”
Battle North, LLC v. Sensible Hous. Co., 370 P.3d 238 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“- § 38-35-204(1). The statute then provides an expedited procedure whereby the court issues an order to show ecause to the respondent (the entity which recorded or filed the allegedly spurious lien or- document); the respondent responds to the order to show cause; an evidentiary…”
Kerns v. Kerns, 53 P.3d 1157 (Colo. 2002).
“In addition to the action to quiet title brought in the Larimer County District Court, Respondent also filed a motion in the Minnesota action requesting that the court declare notices of lis pendens filed by Petitioners against the Idaho ranch {acilities null and void.”
Baked, LLC v. GJG Prop., LLC, 2020 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“Appellants are responsible for providing an adequate record on appeal; when an appellant fails to provide a transcript of a hearing, “we presume that the court’s ruling declaring the lien invalid [under section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
v. Evans, 2019 COA 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
“He argued that the Abstract must be removed from the Douglas County real property records under the procedure set forth in section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-204(1)(a) — 2 cases
Tuscany, LLC v. W. States Excavating Pipe & Boring, LLC, 128 P.3d 274 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“In response, Tuscany brought this action challenging the liens and requested a show cause hearing under § 38-35-204, C.R.S.2004. Although BCORP had commenced a separate action, the trial court allowed it to join in Tusceany's request for a hearing.”
v. Evans, 2019 COA 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
“He argued that the Abstract must be removed from the Douglas County real property records under the procedure set forth in section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-204(1)(c) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-204(2) — 8 cases
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 298 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“2009, under section 38-35-204, C.R.S.2009, and based on slander of title.”
Baked, LLC v. GJG Prop., LLC, 2020 COA 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“Appellants are responsible for providing an adequate record on appeal; when an appellant fails to provide a transcript of a hearing, “we presume that the court’s ruling declaring the lien invalid [under section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
Sifton v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 259 P.3d 542 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“This case presents an unresolved question of Colorado law: If a respondent releases a contested lien or document before the show cause hearing under section 38-35-204 of the Spurious Liens and Documents statute, seetion 38-35-201, et seq.”
v. Evans, 2019 COA 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
“He argued that the Abstract must be removed from the Douglas County real property records under the procedure set forth in section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-35-204(3) — 3 cases
Wester Holdings P'ship v. Reece, 991 P.2d 328 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“Reece, was not a “spurious document” for purposes of § 38-35-204, C.R.S.1999. Plaintiff also appeals the award of attorney fees to defendant.”
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 298 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“2009, under section 38-35-204, C.R.S.2009, and based on slander of title.”
v. Evans, 2019 COA 179 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
“He argued that the Abstract must be removed from the Douglas County real property records under the procedure set forth in section 38-35-204, C.R.S. 2019, and C.R.C.”
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.