25CA0943
Colo. Ct. App.Jul 9, 2026Background
- Elk Creek Ranch litigation involved disputes among the Association, ECRD, ECO, Wheeler, and YZ Ranch over assessments, management, fiduciary duties, and fishing access. 1
- The jury found ECO breached the management agreement, Wheeler breached fiduciary duties, and YZ Ranch breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing but not the fishing lease's express terms. 2
- After remand from a prior appeal, the district court granted a permanent injunction for the Association against YZ Ranch. 3
- The district court later bifurcated postjudgment fee proceedings and ruled the Association could recover fees from ECO, ECRD could recover fees from the Association, and the Association could not recover fees from YZ Ranch. 4
- In April 2025, the court awarded ECRD $1,261,649.10 in attorney fees. 5
- The Association appealed, and defendants argued the August 2024 fee order was final and the appeal untimely. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the August 2024 fee order final and appealable? 7 | Association said fees remained unresolved for other parties. | Defendants said YZ Ranch was fully resolved, making appeal untimely. | Not final until all fee requests were resolved; appeal timely. 8 |
| Did the fishing-lease fee clause cover YZ Ranch's good-faith breach? 9 | Association said breach of good faith was a triggering default. | YZ Ranch said only defined 'Default by Tenant' triggered fees. | Yes; undefined 'default' means plain breach, including good-faith breach. 10 |
| Did the district court properly calculate ECRD's attorney-fee award? 11 | Association said unreasonable hours had to be excluded before lodestar. | ECRD said reductions after lodestar were proper because claims were intertwined. | No; court abused discretion by reducing after using unreasonable hours. 12 |
Key Cases Cited
- Mulberry Frontage Metro. Dist. v. Sunstate Equip. Co., 2023 COA 66 (Colo. App. 2023) (appeal deadline runs from final judgment or order 13)
- Luster v. Brinkman, 250 P.3d 664 (Colo. App. 2010) (two-part test for finality of postjudgment orders 14)
- Axtell v. Park Sch. Dist. R-3, 962 P.2d 319 (Colo. App. 1998) (fee award is not final until amount is set 15)
- Mayer v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., 672 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2012) (postjudgment fee order is not final while other fee requests remain pending 16)
- In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, 61 F.4th 1126 (10th Cir. 2023) (fee proceedings are not final until the entire allocation is complete 17)
- S. Colo. Orthopaedic Clinic Sports Med. & Arthritis Surgeons, P.C. v. Weinstein, 2014 COA 171 (Colo. App. 2014) (unambiguous fee-shifting provisions get plain, common-sense meaning 18)
- Payan v. Nash Finch Co., 2012 COA 135M (Colo. App. 2012) (lodestar requires reasonable hours first, then rate multiplication 19)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours 20)
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin, 908 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1995) (good-faith duty is implied in every contract and governs discretionary performance 21)
- Fishoff v. Coty Inc., 634 F.3d 647 (2d Cir. 2011) (breach of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of contract 22)
- Derry Finance N.V. v. Christiana Companies, 797 F.2d 1210 (3d Cir. 1986) (undefined 'default' has its plain meaning and is not the same as a defined default term 23)
- Jones v. Riche, 2009 UT App 196 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (default clause treated breach as triggering attorney-fee liability 24)