Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC
2012 CO 46
| Colo. | 2012Background
- Betty Amos and Thomas Righetti owned a Aspen condo secured by a Deed of Trust to Equitable Bank.
- Righetti died in 2002; Amos and Righetti’s daughter Brandy were co-personal representatives of the estate.
- In 2006, the loan default led Equitable Bank to seek foreclosure under Rule 120; notice was sent to Amos but not to the Estate or Brandy.
- Public trustee foreclosure sale occurred on February 27, 2007; Amos/estate did not bid; Aspen Alps 1283, LLC formed by three bidders after the sale and was deemed the successful bidder.
- Amos sought to enjoin the deed and alleged Rule 120 noncompliance; the trial court found no prejudice despite imperfect notice.
- Court of Appeals held Rule 120 strict compliance required but excused notice to Estate; also held bid rigging occurred; majority affirms Rule 120 but reverses on bid rigging.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 120 notice strict compliance required? | Amos argues strict compliance voids sale due to misaddressed notice | Bank argues actual notice suffices when no prejudice occurs | Rule 120 strict compliance not required if no prejudice |
| Was bid rigging proven under Colorado Antitrust Act? | Amos contends Aspen Alps conspired to stop bidding to keep price low | Aspen Alps bidders pooled resources lawfully to bid jointly due to financial limits | Bid rigging not proven; joint bidding and pooling found to be lawful under record |
| Remedy for potential bid rigging after foreclosure sale? | If bid rigging occurred, sale should be voided or deed awarded to the high bidder | Record shows no bid rigging; remedy should not void sale | Remix not needed; bid rigging not established; sale affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dews v. Dist. Court, 648 P.2d 662 (Colo. 1982) (strict compliance with Rule 120; timely notice matters)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process notice requires meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Guthrie v. United States, 814 F. Supp. 942 (E.D. Wash. 1993) (prior agreement to rig bids not required to prove bid rigging; focus on anti-competitive aim)
- Love v. Basque Cartel, 873 F. Supp. 563 (D. Wyo. 1995) (joint bidding can be lawful pooling; distinguish from bid rigging)
- Kearney v. Taylor, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 494 (1853) (joint bidding may be meritorious when not aimed at suppressing competition)
- United States v. Guthrie, N/A (N/A) (as cited in discussion of prior bid rigging cases)
- D.C. v. amorphous reference, N/A (N/A) (additional authority discussed in antitrust context)