Lucero v. Ulvestad, 2015 COA 98

On Sept. 10, 2009 Ulvestad sold a Jefferson County house (with a steam room) to Landers under an installment land contract: Landers received immediate possession and equitable ownership while Ulvestad retained legal title in escrow until final payment.
The contract required Landers to obtain Ulvestad’s approval for major alterations, required Landers to keep the property in good repair, allowed simplified eviction on default, and left Ulvestad listed on mortgage/insurance matters.
On Sept. 12, 2009 fifteen-year-old Lucero, with Landers’ permission to use the steam room, entered it unsupervised, suffered a seizure, and sustained severe burns.
Lucero obtained a default judgment against Landers, amended to add Ulvestad under the Colorado Premises Liability Act (CPLA); Ulvestad defended that he was not a landowner under the CPLA and owed no duty.
The trial court denied summary judgment on landowner status, later ruled Lucero was a trespasser as to Ulvestad and instructed the jury accordingly; the jury found for Ulvestad.
The Court of Appeals held that, under the installment land contract terms, Ulvestad was not a "landowner" within the CPLA at the time of the injury, and affirmed judgment for Ulvestad.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ulvestad was a "landowner" under the CPLA at the time of Lucero's injury	Lucero argued record title holder Ulvestad should be treated as landowner liable under CPLA	Ulvestad contended he transferred possession and legal responsibility to Landers under the installment land contract and thus was not a landowner	Held: Ulvestad was not a landowner because Landers had possession and contractual responsibility for property condition
Whether installment land-contract sellers retain CPLA liability despite retaining legal title	Lucero implied retained title and limited reserved rights made Ulvestad legally responsible	Ulvestad argued retained rights (insurance, approval for major alterations, remedy on default) are security interests similar to a mortgage, not evidence of possession or legal responsibility for conditions	Held: Retained rights were protective security interests; they did not reserve possession or legal responsibility, so no CPLA liability for seller
Whether the trespasser determination required reversal	Lucero argued designation as trespasser precluded recovery and was erroneous	Ulvestad maintained even if classification was incorrect, he was not a landowner under the CPLA so no liability	Held: Even if trespasser ruling was erroneous, plaintiff was not harmed because Ulvestad was not a landowner; judgment affirmed

Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 489 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1971) (overruled strict common-law status rules and informed statutory treatment of entrant status)
Pierson v. Black Canyon Aggregates, Inc., 48 P.3d 1215 (Colo. 2002) (defining "in possession of" as occupying with intent to control; possession informs landowner status)
Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004) (discussing CPLA purpose to narrow landowner liability and preemption of common-law duties)
Sleeping Indian Ranch, Inc. v. West Ridge Group, LLC, 119 P.3d 1062 (Colo. 2005) (characterizing installment land contracts as secured financing with equitable title in vendee)
Anderson v. Cosmopolitan Nat'l Bank of Chicago, 301 N.E.2d 296 (Ill. 1973) (vendor under installment contract not treated as owner for tort liability despite retained contractual rights)