GaNun v. Epic
23CA1667
Colo. Ct. App.Aug 15, 2024Background
- Jennifer GaNun and Andrew Thomas (plaintiffs) own a condominium governed by Epic on the Park Homeowners Association (Epic).
- Plaintiffs sued Epic for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence relating to alleged failures to fix roof problems causing property and personal injury.
- Epic asserted affirmative defenses, including the business judgment rule, and the jury ruled in favor of Epic on all claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not defining certain business judgment rule terms in the jury instructions.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the plaintiffs preserved this instructional argument and whether any alleged instructional error prejudiced their substantial rights.
- The court affirmed the jury's verdict and remanded for a determination of Epic’s attorney fees on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of business judgment rule terms in jury instructions | Court should have instructed the jury on definitions for key phrases in the business judgment instruction | Plaintiffs never requested such definitions at trial; objections did not alert court to this specific issue | Argument not preserved for appeal |
| Prejudicial effect of omission of definitions | Omission resulted in incomplete/misleading instructions, entitling them to a new trial | Jury could have found for Epic on other grounds; any error was harmless or immaterial | No showing of prejudice; any error was harmless |
| Preservation of instructional error | Raised a general objection, and issue should be reviewable | Only specific, preserved objections are reviewable on appeal | Only timely, specific objections are reviewable |
| Award of attorney fees on appeal | Opposed Epic's claim (not detailed in opinion) | Entitled by statute since prevailing in CCIOA-based litigation | Epic awarded reasonable attorney fees on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ajay Sports, Inc. v. Casazza, 1 P.3d 267 (Colo. App. 2000) (party waived argument regarding jury instruction by failing to object specifically at trial)
- Vikell Invs. Pac., Inc. v. Kip Hampden, Ltd., 946 P.2d 589 (Colo. App. 1997) (general objections do not preserve specific issues for appeal regarding jury instructions)
- Moody v. Corsentino, 843 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1993) (party seeking reversal for instructional error bears burden of showing prejudicial error)
- Poudre Valley Rural Elec. Ass’n v. City of Loveland, 807 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1991) (burden on appealing party to show error was prejudicial)
- Elk River Assocs. v. Huskin, 691 P.2d 1148 (Colo. App. 1984) (court will not speculate as to grounds for jury verdict absent clear record)