GaNun v. Epic, 23CA1667

Plaintiffs Jennifer GaNun and Andrew Thomas own a condominium unit governed by the Epic on the Park Homeowners Association (Epic).
They sued Epic for breach of contract, breach of the contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence, alleging Epic failed to properly repair roof problems that led to property damage and personal injury.
The district court, following a jury trial, entered judgment in favor of Epic on all claims.
The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were incomplete and misleading because they did not define certain terms related to Epic’s affirmative defense—the business judgment rule.
The district court also instructed the jury on several affirmative defenses, including the business judgment rule, and placed the burden of proof on Epic for those defenses.
On appeal, Epic sought attorney fees for defense costs incurred during the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to define business judgment rule terms in instructions	The court should have defined key phrases for the jury.	Plaintiffs did not preserve this specific objection at trial.	Objection not preserved; no need to address.
Jury instruction error prejudicial to plaintiffs	The missing definitions misled the jury and prejudiced plaintiffs.	The verdict forms do not show if jury relied on this issue.	No showing of prejudice; speculative.
Attorney fees on appeal	Not addressed by plaintiffs on appeal.	Epic entitled to fees as prevailing HOA per statute.	Fees granted, remanded for amount.

Ajay Sports, Inc. v. Casazza, 1 P.3d 267 (Colo. App. 2000) (failure to specifically object to jury instruction waives that argument on appeal)
Vikell Invs. Pac., Inc. v. Kip Hampden, Ltd., 946 P.2d 589 (Colo. App. 1997) (must state specific grounds for objections to preserve for appeal)
Moody v. Corsentino, 843 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1993) (burden is on appellant to establish reversible error)
Poudre Valley Rural Elec. Ass’n v. City of Loveland, 807 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1991) (same principle; showing prejudice required)