V&H v. Beardsley, 23CA0630

V&H Development Co., LLC (V&H) contracted with Beardsley Construction (and later Beardsley Enterprises, both owned by Craig Beardsley) to build a single-family home, without a formal written agreement.
Construction ended in 2017 with punch list items unfinished, after which V&H sold the home in 2018.
In 2019, V&H sued the Beardsley Defendants for project delays, cost overruns, and HVAC defects, alleging negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and other claims (some later withdrawn or dismissed).
A jury trial in 2023 found Beardsley Enterprises liable for breach of contract ($78,207.51) and awarded nominal damages against Beardsley Construction and Craig Beardsley for other claims.
Both parties appealed: Beardsley Defendants challenged liability and damages; V&H challenged damages award, jury instructions, and denial of a motion to amend its complaint.
The appellate court’s review was significantly constrained due to incomplete trial transcripts and inadequate appellate briefing by both parties.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether damages were awarded in violation of CDARA construction defect requirements	No, V&H properly sought damages without violating CDARA	V&H recovered for construction defects without CDARA compliance	Record too incomplete to review; no error shown, presumption supports judgment
Sufficiency of breach of contract evidence and damages	Sufficient evidence supported damages for breach of contract	V&H didn’t prove entitlement or amount of damages, and/or waived right to recover	Record too incomplete to review; presumption supports judgment
Sufficiency of negligent misrepresentation evidence and damages	Evidence supported claim and damages	Negligent misrepresentation based on future statements; standard of care not proved	Record too incomplete to review; presumption supports judgment
Denial of V&H’s motion to amend complaint and reconsider	Motion should have been granted—timely and not prejudicial	Amendment was unduly delayed and prejudicial; would complicate and delay proceedings	Court had discretion to deny: undue delay and prejudice justified denial
Jury instructions on double recovery	Proposed jury instruction was necessary to avoid confusion and prejudice	Existing instruction sufficed; additional language unnecessary	No abuse of discretion in refusing proposed language; instructions accurate in law

O’Quinn v. Baca, 250 P.3d 629 (Colo. App. 2010) (appellate courts require adherence to the Colorado Appellate Rules; incomplete records limit review)
Hock v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 876 P.2d 1242 (Colo. 1994) (where appellant fails to provide a full record, court presumes judgment is supported)
Benton v. Adams, 56 P.3d 81 (Colo. 2002) (standard for amendment of pleadings is generally liberal, but undue delay/prejudice supports denial)
Wisehart v. Zions Bancorporation, 49 P.3d 1200 (Colo. App. 2002) (delay alone does not bar amendment unless it prejudices opposing party)
Goodman v. Heritage Builders, Inc., 390 P.3d 398 (Colo. 2017) (timing for bringing third-party/contribution claims after settlement or judgment discussed)