|
|
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION?
THE AMERIQUEST DECISION
George E. Reeves, Esq.
Blackacre is encumbered by two deeds of trust, A and B. The owner of Blackacre then obtains a new loan secured by deed of trust C, the proceeds of which are to be used to pay off deeds of trust A and B. The A deed of trust is paid off and released of record. The B deed of trust is not paid off, but C believes that it had been. B then proceeds to foreclose, and at the foreclosure sale, B “bid on the property . . . with the reasonable belief that it would be able to resell the property free and clear of all encumbrances.” The Colorado Supreme Court ruled:
“Although it is undisputed that [C] recorded its interest before the foreclosure sale actually took place, the recordation in this case did not sufficiently put [B] on notice that [C] was claiming equitable subrogation rights. [C’s] deed of trust makes no reference to any claimed subrogation rights, nor does it explain that the proceeds of the loan secured by the deed of trust were used to satisfy the senior liens against the property. A reasonable purchaser, therefore, would have no way of knowing that [C] was claiming first lien priority against the property in the amounts applied to payment of the [A] deed of trust. Instead, a reasonable purchaser at the foreclosure sale who checked title before bidding would simply believe that [C’s] deed of trust, as a lien ‘junior to the lien foreclosed,’ would be extinguished by expiration of the redemption period.” Land Title Insurance Corporation v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, 207 P.3d 141, 146 (2009).
Equitable subrogation, by definition, requires that the subrogee [C], when he pays off the senior lien [the A deed of trust], have no actual notice of the existence of the intervening lien [the B deed of trust]. (Here, C apparently did not acquire actual notice that the B deed of trust had not been paid off until “the same day the owner’s redemption period expired”). A fortiori, the subrogee [C] would have no reason to believe that he would need to claim equitable subrogation, and therefore, would have no reason to include any specific reference to equitable subrogation, either in the C deed of trust or in the release of the A deed of trust. In this regard, the Colorado Supreme Court, rather unhelpfully, notes:
“We leave for another day resolution of the issue of precisely what a recorded subrogation interest must say in order to put others on notice of the claimed interest.“ Id.
Pending the “another day”, it would seem that a statement in the deed of trust that senior encumbrances (specifically identifying them) are to be satisfied out of the proceeds of the loan, together with general language such as: “Lender claims all rights of subrogation which may result from the payment of senior encumbrances,” may be the best that can be done “in order to put others on notice of the claimed interest”.
|
|
LOAN MODIFICATIONS: PANACEA OR PLACEBO?
Charles P. Leder, Esq.
Berenbaum Weinshienk PC
Many housing experts believe that concessionary loan modifications are the best means of reducing the delinquencies and defaults currently plaguing the residential real estate market. Nearly one in five homes loans made in 2007 is seriously delinquent, and in addition to the hardships suffered by borrowers and the losses incurred by lenders, widespread loan delinquencies and defaults continue to delay the recovery of the housing market.
Policymakers favor loan modifications as a cure to housing ills because modifying a loan costs the government relatively little, helps borrowers stay in their homes, and lowers lending losses because modifying a loan costs less than foreclosing it. It was in furtherance of this policy that the Department of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) established an aggressive loss mitigation program (“Loss Mitigation Program”) to deal with delinquent homeowner loans.
The Loss Mitigation Program is a comprehensive system of loss mitigation actions and includes special forbearance plans to give delinquent borrowers time to cure defaults; modification of loan terms to make loan payments more affordable; and use of the proceeds of partial claims on loan insurance to reinstate delinquent loans. HUD requires its lenders to implement loss mitigation programs, and HUD Mortgagee Letter 00-05 emphatically stated, “PARTICIPATION IN THE LOSS MITIGATION PROGRAM IS NOT OPTIONAL,”1 and lenders face penalties and treble damages if they do not participate. HUD implemented the current Loss Mitigation Program in 2000 and subsequently refined it, but the program has not stopped the many foreclosures that have followed the recent collapse in the housing market.
In response, the government has supplemented existing Loss Mitigation Programs with such programs as the HOPE NOW Initiative and the Making Home Affordable Program; the success of these programs, however, is debatable. Arguing their success, the Department of the Treasury announced that, as of November 2009, over 650,000 “struggling homeowners in every state now benefit from reduced monthly mortgage payments and have an opportunity to stay in their homes.”2
Arguing the failure of these programs, the Congressional Oversight Panel said that, at best, the Making Home Affordable Program and similar initiatives would avoid less than half of the foreclosures predicted. According to the Congressional Oversight Panel, the programs neither address nor adequately resolve problems resulting from high rates of unemployment, resets of adjustable-rate mortgages, and mortgages that do not qualify for relief under existing programs.
In addition to these failures of loan modification programs, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston documented in a July 2009 study (the “FRB Study”) that lenders have modified only a small percentage of eligible loans. According to the FRB Study, “since the foreclosure crisis started in 2007 [loan servicers have] performed payment-reducing modifications on only about 3 percent of seriously delinquent loans.”3
In analyzing the reasons for this low rate of loan modification, the FRB Study first considered whether the low rate was attributable to loan servicers that, administering large portfolios of securitized mortgage loans on behalf of third parties, had no incentive to renegotiate and modify delinquent loans. The FRB Study, however, discounted this as a cause because the rate of loan modifications in servicer-owned portfolios was as low as the rate of loans in investor-owned pools.
The FRB Study then considered whether loan modifications were truly less expensive alternatives to foreclosure. The common wisdom, the FRB Study noted, was that modifying a loan was less costly than foreclosing one, but the FRB Study concluded that this might not be the case because of what it labeled “self-cure risks” and “redefault risks.” A lender’s “self-cure risk” is that it might incur unnecessary cost and expense in renegotiating a loan that a borrower would have cured without lender assistance. A lender’s “re-default risk” is that it might incur unnecessary costs and greater losses when it renegotiates a loan that then defaults anyway.
Of the two risks, the FRB Study concluded that the re-default risk was the more costly because the lender not only incurred the cost of a futile loan modification, it also risked further deterioration in the value and condition of the foreclosed property. Re-default risks, moreover, are ongoing risks because many loan modifications do not adequately address the reasons for a borrower’s delinquency. A loan modification that lowers reset interest rates and lowers monthly payments, for example, may not avoid subsequent default if the amount owed on a home is substantially more than the home is worth. In such a circumstance, a borrower that must sell a home will end up in default or, at best, a short sale in which the lender incurs additional losses when it accepts less than the balance owed on the loan.
The FRB Study concludes, “[t]here is a widespread concern that an inefficiently low number of mortgages have been modified during the current crisis” and that this low rate has harmed borrowers, investors, and lenders. The FRB Study, however, offers no alternatives or solutions beyond noting that policymakers should not rely on concessionary loan modifications as a panacea that will solve all housing woes.
The scope and persistence of the current housing crisis is daunting. The National Association of Realtors, for example, has estimated that short sales now make up one out of every ten home sales and, if they had to sell now, sixteen million homeowners could sell their residence only through a short sale.4 While concessionary loan modifications and tax credits to homebuyers are beneficial, the ultimate restoration of the housing market may well depend on factors – such as more jobs and increased consumer confidence – well beyond the scope of governmental power.
1. HUD Mortgagee Letter 00-05 on January 20, 2000, at 6.
2. Treasury Assistant Secretary Michael S. Barr quoted in a November 10, 2009, in a press release from Making Home Affordable. Accessed on November 12, 2009. Available at http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/pr11102009.html.
3. Manuel Adelino, Krisopher Gerardi, and Paul S. Willen, “So Why Don’t Lenders Renegotiate More Home Mortgages? Redefaults, Self-Cures, and Securitization, “Public Policy Discussion Papers (Federal Reserve of Boston) No. 09-4. Accessed November 10, 2009. Available on the web site of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston at http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppdp/2008/ppdp0904.htm.
4. Associated Press, “Meltdown 101: What Is a Short Sale of a Home?” The New York Times, October 8, 2009. Accessed October 11, 2009. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/08/us/AP-US-Meltdown-101-Short-Sales.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=short%20sales&st=cse.
[The opinions expressed in the preceding article to not necessarily reflect the opinions or official positions of the Colorado Bar Association, the Real Estate Section Council or its members.]
|
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
One of the core purposes of the Real Estate Section is to "participate actively in the drafting, review, recommendation and promotion of legislation and other laws, rules or regulations that affect real property, titles and the practice of real estate law." Bylaws of the Real Estate Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association (as amended and restated effective May 20, 2003). Each legislative session of the Colorado General Assembly, members of the Real Estate Section Council review, and in some cases support or oppose, proposed legislation affecting real property. The Real Estate Law Section is closely following the following proposed legislation:
•County Clerk & Recorder Fees.
Currently, some Colorado Clerks and Recorders (including Denver’s Clerk and Recorder) are using C.R.S. § 30?1?103(4) as a basis for charging $5.00 for every grantor/grantee named in a recorded document in excess of the first grantor and the first grantee. This provision provides, “Documents containing multiple grants, notices, assignments, or releases of leases, deeds of trust, mortgages, or liens, or other instruments that require multiple entries in the grantor or grantee index, shall incur an additional fee of five dollars for each such entry in excess of one per document.” This fee is in addition to the standard statutory recording fee of $5.00 for each page of the recorded document charged pursuant to C.R.S. § 30?1?103(1). Certain other Colorado Clerks and Recorders do not currently impose fees relating to multiple grantors/grantees. Still other Clerks and Recorders are considering the future imposition of such fees.
This situation has created uncertainties and inconsistencies for all parties participating in real property transactions in Colorado. Certain counties interpret the statutory language to permit charging such additional fees for the naming of trustees of trusts, or for the recitation of alternate entity names, such as “formerly known as” recitations, and others do not. Documents involving, for example, timeshare interests or common interest communities, where many multiple parties are required to be named in a document, are becoming exceedingly costly to record in some counties. Transactions involving the recording of the same document in multiple counties may have widely varying recording costs with respect to the recording of such document. This leads to uncertainty by title companies and attorneys who participate in Colorado real property transactions and, in general, is a headache for attorneys, especially in light of the fact that documents can be rejected for recording purposes if the proper recording fees are not remitted with each document, leading to potential liability or malpractice claims. Many national lenders, unaware of this situation, are not providing sufficient recording fees along with releases of deeds of trust. When such document is rejected for recording, the lender fails to follow up and the deed of trust is never released, thereby clouding title to the subject real property.
In an effort to rectify this situation, the Colorado Bar Association by and through its Real Estate Section Council has voted to support legislation to revise C.R.S. § 30?1?103 as follows:
(a) Revise § 30?1?103(1) to provide for a recording fee of $10.00 for the first page of each recorded document and $5.00 for each succeeding page after the first page.
(b) Repeal § 30?1?103(4) in its entirety.
This bill will be introduced in the 2010 legislative session sponsored by Representative Joel Judd (in the House) and Senator Greg Brophy (in the Senate). The bill is also being supported by the Colorado County Clerks Association and the Land Title Association of Colorado.
[Thanks to Randall G. Alt, Otten Johnson Robinson Neff & Ragonetti.]
•CCIOA Super Priority Lien.
Members of the Real Estate Section are participating in a legislative task force to make recommendations to the Colorado legislature as how to resolve various issues and questions regarding the interpretation and application of the CCIOA six month super priority lien (C.R.S. § 38-33.3-316(2)(b)) and other foreclosure-related provisions including:
- Ensuring adequacy of notice of foreclosure actions both by a foreclosing beneficiary of a deed of trust to an association and by an association foreclosing a super priority assessment to the beneficiary of a deed of trust on the subject property;
- Achieving a more uniform understanding of how frequently the six month super priority lien arises and what amounts (if any) constitute permissible add-ons to the 6 months of dues which first priority lien holders have to pay;
- Clarification as to the application of legal fees and costs arising from a foreclosure of a super priority lien;
- Addressing issues arising in connection with the sale and assignment of lien rights; and
- Addressing issues regarding redemption rights held by the assessment lien owner, which may be split into a super-priority portion and a junior portion.
The Section welcomes comments and suggestions from its members in connection with these important discussions. The intent of this task force is to get all stakeholders with issues pertaining to the super priority lien at the table. Other interested individuals with specific needs to be considered should contact Michael Valdez, Colorado Bar Association, Director - Legislative Relations (office - 303.824.5309; mavaldez@cobar.org), for future meeting dates
[Thanks to James G. Benjamin, Benjamin, Bain & Howard, LLC, Christopher W. Payne, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP and Cynthia M. Stovall, Sherman & Howard, LLC.]
|
CASE LAW UPDATE
•Amicus Brief filed by Real Estate Section Council in Shirley S. Joondeph, Brian C. Joondeph, and CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Donald P. Hicks, 08SC784.
The Real Estate Section Council filed an amicus brief in Shirley S. Joondeph, Brian C. Joondeph, and CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Donald P. Hicks, 08SC784 on September 9, 2009. The amicus brief has been posted on the Real Estate Section portion of the Colorado Bar Association website, click here to read it online. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for December 3, 2009.
For more information on the process involved in approving the submittal of an amicus brief by the Colorado Bar Association or a Section thereof click here.
[Thanks to Geoffrey P. Anderson, Burns Figa & Will PC.]
•Certiorari Granted in Clubhouse at Fairway Pines, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fairway Pines Estates Owners Association, Defendant-Appellant, Colorado Court of Appeals No. 07CA1368.
This case concerns a dispute over the meaning of the word “club” in the Declaration for Fairway Pines Estates. The trial court noted that the term “club” is not defined in the declaration, yet based on a contract reformation counterclaim asserted by the defendant-appellant owners association which the trial court treated as an action for declaratory relief, the trial court concluded that owners are members of both the “golf course and club” for which they must pay dues to be assessed and collected by the association.
This finding, it was argued by the defendant-appellant, could not bind all of the association’s owners since the reformation/declaratory judgment was in the nature of a declaration amendment, that all of the owners had not been joined as indispensable parties, and that the association could not adequately represent the interests of the owners.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following issues:
- Whether the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the defendant did not waive its right to raise the need for indispensable parties by failing to raise the issue in a timely matter.
- Whether the court of appeals decision is not in accord with the basic intent of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act., e.g., section 38-33.3-311, CRS.
- Whether court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the interests of the homeowners were not adequately represented.
- Whether the court of appeals decision that lot owners are indispensable parties is contrary to public policy, unduly chilling the rights of litigants and rendering cases excessively cost prohibitive.
[Thanks to Candyce D. Cavanagh, Orten Cavanagh Richmond & Holmes, and to Geoffrey P. Anderson, Burns Figa & Will PC .]
|
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Legislative Policy Committee.
Each legislative session of the Colorado General Assembly, members of the Real Estate Section Council review, and in some cases recommend sponsoring, proposing changes to, supporting or opposing proposed legislation affecting real property. Any such actions by the Real Estate Section Council (“RESC”) require the approval of the Legislative Policy Committee of the Colorado Bar Association (“CBA”) and, in some instances, of either the Board of Governors of the CBA or the Executive Council of the CBA. For more information on the policies and procedures of the Legislative Policy Committee visit their website. James G. Benjamin, Benjamin, Bain & Howard, LLC, currently serves as the Real Estate Section Liaison to the Legislative Policy Committee.
The following is a list of some of the legislation for the upcoming 2010 or future legislative sessions on which the Legislative Policy Committee of the Colorado Bar Association is currently working:
-
Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act
-
Uniform Statutory Trust Act
-
Uniform Limited Cooperative Association Act
-
Uniform Disclaimer of Property Interests Act
-
Changes in fees for service of process
-
Changes in Clerk and Recorder filing fees
-
Changes to the common interest community association super-lien provisions
-
Changes to provisions regarding actions by written consent
Previously, the Committee had been considering the adoption of the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act. In the end it was determined that such Act should not be adopted because it was determined to be inconsistent with Colorado real estate law and would require substantial non-uniform amendments without substantially improving current law.
Title Standards Committee.
The Title Standards Committee of the Real Estate Law Section of the CBA is appointed by the RESC and the RESC is represented by a liaison to the Committee. “The charge of the committee is to consider current title problems and draft and propose title standards or legislation for their solution.” Real Estate Title Standards (revised and effective July 1, 2008). The resulting Colorado Real Estate Title Standards address, “the impact of certain specified title issues on the marketability of title” and provide instructions, “as to the duties of an examining attorney and scope of a title search.” Id. The Colorado Real Estate Title Standards are available on the RESC page of the CBA website under “Resources.". Geoffrey P. Anderson, Burns Figa & Will PC, and Diane B. Davies, Faegre & Benson, LLP, currently serve as the Real Estate Section Liaisons to the Title Standards Committee.
The Colorado Bar Association has approved a revised version of Title Standard 11.1.9 drafted by the Title Standards Committee. Title Standard 11.1.9 addresses documents to be recorded in connection with the conveyance of Colorado real property by a foreign personal representative. The revised title standard appears in the Colorado Real Estate Title Standards Revised and Effective November 7, 2009 which are available at the link set forth in the paragraph above.
The Title Standards Committee is also revising Title Standard XV as necessary to address changes in the law arising out of the adoption of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act of 2003 and related Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, including considering whether concluding a quiet title action without the appointment of an attorney to represent unknown parties who may be serving in military, affects marketability of title.
Real Estate Commission Forms Committee.
The RESC is represented by a liaison to the Real Estate Commission Forms Committee which recommends changes to the forms adopted by the Real Estate Commission in response to new laws, changes in practice and consideration of public protection. Input of the Council is frequently sought for revisions to forms before they are finalized and approved by the Real
Estate Commission. Kent Jay Levine, Kent Jay Levine, P.C., currently serves as the Liaison to the Forms Committee.
The Real Estate Commission Forms Committee is currently studying the possible addition of a new commercial real estate contract form, or making changes to the Colorado Real Estate Commission’s approved Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for commercial transactions.
Discussions regarding possible changes to Sections 4.3 and 5.2 of the approved Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate, which provisions place a buyer in default or risk of loss of the earnest money deposit in the event the buyer fails to obtain a loan through no fault of buyer, have been deferred.
Interprofessional Committee.
The RESC is represented by liaisons to the Interprofessional Committee, whose purpose is to promote a better understanding among real estate professionals and whose members also (besides the CBA, represented by the Real Estate Section) include the Colorado Division of Real Estate, Colorado Association of REALTORS, the Land Title Association of Colorado and the Colorado Division of Insurance. The current liaisons are Candyce D. Cavanagh, Orten Cavanagh Richmond & Holmes, Paul V. Timmins, Holme Roberts & Owen, LLP, and Peter J. Griffiths, Land Title Guarantee Co.
The Interprofessional Committee has recently spent time discussing potential legislation for the upcoming 2010 session. In addition to the proposed bills discussed above in the Legislative Policy Committee update, other potential bills being considered by various members of the Interprofessional Committee include rent control legislation, mechanics lien rights for real estate brokers (with respect to leasing commissions), regulation of appraisal management companies, regulation of mortgage loan originator companies, green burial related legislation, new bills related to urban renewal and CDOT land use involvement (including the ability for CDOT to levy impact fees) and transfer fee legislation.
The Colorado Division of Real Estate has recently issued three new position opinions with respect to real estate brokers being responsible for the actions of their personal assistants, brokers being obligated to conform to broker regulations in personal transactions and broker rules for financing discussions (when not a mortgage broker). These opinions are available on the Colorado Division of Real Estate’s website. Broker renewal fees are being reduced from $300 to $195, with original license fees remaining unchanged.
Colorado Housing Council.
The RESC is represented by liaisons to the Colorado Housing Council, whose purpose is to see to it that the public is better served in its housing needs through the advancement of communication among industry members, delivery of programs and information to the public, cooperation with legislative and regulatory bodies, and coordination with major employers and federal, state and local agencies. The current liaisons from the RESC are Catherine A. Hance, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP, and Christopher W. Payne, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll.
The Colorado Housing Council’s October meeting included a presentation by Eric Haar of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka. FHL Banks are structured as co-ops owned by member institutions, including banks, credit unions and insurance companies, and have remained profitable during the downturn without bailout money. In considering proposed banking reforms, Mr. Haar suggested that federal and state regulators could do well to consider the FHL Bank model. Since member banks stand to profit (or lose) from their investment in FHL Banks, the quality of loans sold upstream is inherently better.
At the Council’s November meeting, Mark Sneed, Assistant Vice President and Branch Executive of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Denver Branch, spoke with regard to the Colorado economy. Mr. Sneed feels that Colorado’s economic forecast, based on weakness in the energy and technology sectors, is poorer than the nation as a whole and that Colorado’s unemployment rate will continue to grow in the short term.
Ryan McMaken, Community Relations Director for the Colorado Division of Housing, provides foreclosure updates at the Council’s meetings. Colorado is on track for a record number of foreclosure filings in 2009, but the actual number of completed foreclosures remains well behind the record year of 2007. Foreclosure numbers are increasing most significantly in western counties, mountain/vacation property areas and more affluent suburbs, but are flat or down in most Denver metro areas.
Additional Information. For additional information regarding the activities and responsibilities of the members of the Real Estate Section Council, see the article on the Real Estate Section page of the Colorado Bar Association Website entitled “What Does the Real Estate Law Section Do for Me?”
|
DID YOU KNOW . . .
THAT SOME ENGLISH STATUTES ARE IN FORCE IN COLORADO?
George E. Reeves, Esq.
C.R.S. § 2-4-211 provides:
. . . all acts and statutes of the British parliament, made in aid of or to supply the defects of the common law prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth, and which are of a general nature, and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority.
43 Eliz. c.6 provides that where the plaintiff in a personal action, except for any title or interest in lands, or for a battery, recovers less than 40s., he shall have no more costs than damages, if the judge certifies that the debt or damages were under 40s.
37 Hen.VIII c. 9 fixes the lawful interest rate on loans at 10 percent, which was confirmed by 13 Eliz. c.8.
DID YOU KNOW . . .
BOOTSTRAPPERY OF LAND TITLES DOESN’T WORK IN COLORADO?
George E. Reeves, Esq.
In Hamilton v. Noble Energy, Inc., 09CA0236 (Sept. 17, 2009), plaintiffs recorded a document entitled “Declaration of Land Patent”, providing a legal description, and stating:
“If this land patent is not challenged within sixty days (60), in a court of law by someone, or by the government, it then becomes my/our property.”
In an action brought by plaintiffs seeking to recover oil and gas royalties, the Court of Appeals held:
“. . . plaintiffs could not, by merely filing a self-created, self-described ‘land patent’ that says, in effect, ‘we own the described property because we say we do,’ acquire or otherwise transfer those mineral interests, or any other interests in the property legally owned by others to themselves.”
Title examiners may take some comfort from Gunter v. Walpole, 65 Colo. 234, 176 Pac. 290 (`1918) (“an instrument void on its face does not require cancellation by a court to render it harmless”).
|
UPCOMING CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
2009-2010 Topical CLE Luncheons
January 7, 2010 at Maggiano's Denver Pavilions
"Tricks of the Trade or Traps for the Unwary: What Real Estate Lawyers Need to Know About Standard Forms, Terms of Art and Relevant Statutes" -- Diane B. Davies, Esq., Faegre & Benson, LLP
Reservations are recommended. Call Colorado Bar Association, 303-860-1115 x 727, or by email to lunches@cobar.org
|
 Upcoming CLE Real Estate Programs
National CLE Conference, January 6, 2010 thru January 10, 2010, Marriott Mountain Resort - Vail, 715 W Lionshead Circle, Vail CO.
• Program Highlights: A Real Estate Lawyer's Guide to Rainmaking in a Recession; Less than All Appropriate Inquire or Remediation by Natural Attenuation; Due Diligence and Managing Redevelopment Risk in the New Economy; New Tax Provisions and Emerging Options for Owners and Developers and Their Counsel in These Hard Times; Legal Ethics Can Be Fun: Lawyers on TV and in the Movies; Changes in Federal Environmental Regulations after the First Year of the Obama Administration; Working through the Workout: Common Issues with Distressed Property; Updates on the Issues: Climate Change and its Impact on the Practice of Real Estate Law; Scientifically Calculating Current and Potential Environmental Risks and Opportunities in Acquiring Properties: Finding the Silver Lining Amid the Grey; National Water Supply Issues in These Tough Economic Times; Environmental Aspects of Real Estate Transactions: Ten Tactics with Model Clauses; The 2009 Overhaul of the LEED Green Building Rating System and New Programs; The Landlord and Tenant in These Difficult Economic Times and the Call for Green Leases; Helping Development in a Down Economy Including Zoning Strategies for Distressed Properties and ZIPLeRs for Good Measure; Lender Liability in Troubled Times
To register call (303) 860-0608
To register on-line or find out more about these programs, simply visit the CBA-CLE web site at http://www.cobar.org/cle
|
LEGAL WRITING OPPORTUNITIES
Articles Needed For Publication In The Colorado Lawyer. The Real Estate Section encourages all aspiring authors to contribute articles (or even just ideas for articles) for publication in the real estate column of The Colorado Lawyer. Articles submitted need to provide a balanced discussion of new, developing or interesting areas relating to the practice of real estate law in Colorado or nationally. To encourage your creative energy, the Real Estate Section will honor the best real estate article published in The Colorado Lawyer during 2009/2010 with a stipend of $500 to the contributing author or firm. Articles should be submitted to Joseph Lubinski at Ballard Spahr (lubinskij@ballardspahr.com) or to Randy Alt at Otten Johnson (ralt@ottenjohnson.com) for consideration.
Articles, Practice Pointers and Other Contributions Needed for Real Estate Section Newsletter. All members of the Real Estate Section are invited to contribute to the Newsletter. Please submit articles, practice pointers and other contributions to Cyndi Stovall at Sherman & Howard (cstovall@sah.com), Catherine A. Hance, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP (catherine.hance@dgslaw.com), George E. Reeves (geltonreeves@yahoo.com) or Michael J. Repucci, Johnson & Repucci LLP (mjrepucci@j-rlaw.com).
Request for Input on Real Estate Section Web Page. We are working to improve the Real Estate Law Section page of the Colorado Bar Association website and need your input and suggestions. Are there links or other information you have expected to find on the page only to have your hopes dashed? Have your discovered aspects of the site that you feel could be more user-friendly or informative? Please e-mail your comments to Dana Collier Smith at dcolliersmith@cobar.org or to Michael J. Repucci (mjrepucci@j-rlaw.com). We welcome your suggestions and we will carefully review all of them.
|
Section Officers (2009-2010)
|
Chair:
Jerri L. Jenkins
Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher, LLP
621 17th St., 19th Floor
Denver, CO 80293
(303)333-9810
jjenkins@fostergraham.com |
Vice Chair:
Geoffrey P. Anderson
Burns Figa & Will, PC
6400 S. Fiddlers Green Cir. #1030
Denver, CO 80111
(303)796-2626
ganderson@bfw-law.com
|
Secretary:
Thomas L. Devine
Snell & Wilmer LLP
1200 17th St., #1900
Denver, CO 80111
(303)634-2000
tdevine@swlaw.com |
CBA Board of Governors Liason:
Peter J. Griffiths
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 E. 1st Ave., #600
Denver, CO 80206
(303)331-6323
pgriffiths@ltgc.com |
|
| Liasons and Ex Officio Members |
Legislative Policy Committee:
James G. Benjamin
Benjamin, Bain, & Howard LLC
7315 E. Orchard Rd., Suite E400
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
(303)290-6600
E-Mail: jgbenjamin@bbhlegal.com |
Forms Committee:
Kent Jay Levine, P.C.
3780 S. Broadway
Englewood, CO 80113
(303)783-0222
E-Mail: kent@kjlpc.com |
Ethics Committee
Judith McNerny
Carpenter & Klatskin PC
518 17th St., Suite 1500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)534-6315
jmcnerny@ckdenver.com |
Trust and Estates Section
David W. Kirch
David W. Kirch PC
3131 S. Vaughn Wy., #200
Aurora, CO 80014
(303)671-7726
dkirch@dwkpc.com |
Real Estate Title Standards
Geoffrey P. Anderson
Burns Figa & Will, PC
6400 S. Fiddlers Green Cir. #1030
Denver, CO 80111
(303)796-2626
ganderson@bfw-law.com
|
Immediate Past Chairperson
Diane B. Davies
Faegre & Benson, LLP
1700 Lincon St., #3200
Denver, CO 80203
(303)607-3500
ddavies@faegre.com |
Supreme Court Civil Rules Committee Liason
Frederick B. Skillern
Montgomery Little Soran & Murrary, PC
5445 DTC Parkway, Suite 800
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
(303)773-8100
fskillern@montgomerylittle.com |
|
|
| REAL ESTATE SECTION NEWSLETTER |
|
Cyndi Stovall,
Co-Editor
(303)299-8339
cstovall@sah.com |
Catherine A. Hance,
Co-Editor
(303)892-9400
catherine.hance@dgslaw.com |
George E. Reeves,
Co-Editor
(303)832-7114
geltonreves@yahoo.com |
Michael J. Repucci,
Co-Editor
(303)442-1900
mjrepucci@j-rlaw.com |
|
| Council Members: |
Randall G. Alt
Otten Johnson Robinson
Neff & Ragonetti
950 17th St., #1600
Denver, CO 80202
(303)575-7548
ralt@ottenjohnson.com |
Christopher J. Heaphey
Holland & Hart LLP 600 E. Main Street, #104
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)925-3476
cjheaphey@hollandhart.com |
David L. Osborn
The Osborn Law Firm LLC
217 W. Olive Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
(970)484-2928
dosbornlaw@comcast.net |
Andrew M. Toft
216 16th St., #1210
Denver, CO 80202
(303)436-0980
andrewtoft@andrewmtoft.com |
Cynthia M. Stovall
Sherman & Howard LLC
633 17th St., #3000
Denver, CO 80202
(303)299-8339
cstovall@sah.com |
Christopher W. Payne
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP
1225 17th St., #2300
Denver, CO 80202
(303)292-2400
payne@ballardspahr.com |
Mark H. Boscoe
Isaacson Rosenbaum PC
633 17th St., #2200
Denver, CO 80202
(303)292-5656
mboscoe@ir-law.com |
George E. Reeves
1050 Sherman St., #201
Denver, CO 80203
(303)832-7114
geltonreeves@yahoo.com |
Candyce D. Cavanagh
Orten Cavanagh Richmond & Holmes
1301 Washington Ave., Suite 350
Golden, CO 80401
(303)221-9780
ccavanagh@orchlaw.com |
Michael J. Repucci
Johnson & Repucci LLP
2521 Broadway St., Ste. A
Boulder, CO 80304
(303)442-1900
mjrepucci@j-rlaw.com |
Paul Timmins
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
1700 Lincoln St., #4100
Denver, CO 80203
(303)861-7000
Paul.timmins@hro.com |
Catherine A. Hance
Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP
1550 17th St., #500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)892-9400
catherine.hance@dgslaw.com |
|
|
Community Service and Charitable Committees
Mark H. Boscoe
Isaacson Rosenbaum PC
633 17th St., #2200
Denver, CO 80202
(303)292-5656
mboscoe@ir-law.com
|
|
|
| Colorado Housing Council Committee |
Catherine A. Hance
Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP
1550 17th St., #500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)892-9400
catherine.hance@dgslaw.com |
Christopher W. Payne
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP
1225 17th St., #2300
Denver, CO 80202
(303)292-2400
payne@ballardspahr.com |
|
|
| Interprofessional Committee
Candyce D. Cavanagh
Orten Cavanagh Richmond & Holmes
1301 Washington Ave., Suite 350
Golden, CO 80401
(303)221-9780
ccavanagh@orchlaw.com
CBA Board of Governors Liason:
Peter J. Griffiths
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 E. 1st Ave., #600
Denver, CO 80206
(303)331-6323
pgriffiths@ltgc.com
Paul V. Timmins
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
1700 Lincoln St., #4100
Denver, CO 80203
(303)861-7000
Paul.timmins@hro.com
|
| Education Committee --
CLE
Christopher J. Heaphey
Holland & Hart LLP 600 E. Main Street, #104
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)925-3476
cjheaphey@hollandhart.com
Christopher W. Payne
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP
1225 17th St., #2300
Denver, CO 80202
(303)292-2400
payne@ballardspahr.com
Topical Lunch
Andrew M. Toft
216 16th St., #1210
Denver, CO 80202
(303)436-0980
andrewtoft@andrewmtoft.com
|
|
Publications Committee
The Colorado Lawyer
Randall G. Alt
Otten Johnson Robinson
Neff & Ragonetti
950 17th St., #1600
Denver, CO 80202
(303)575-7548
ralt@ottenjohnson.com
Section Newsletter
Cynthia M. Stovall
Sherman & Howard LLC
633 17th St., #3000
Denver, CO 80202
(303)299-8339
cstovall@sah.com
Catherine A. Hance
Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP
1550 17th St., #500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)892-9400
catherine.hance@dgslaw.com
George E. Reeves
1050 Sherman St., #201
Denver, CO 80203
(303)832-7114
geltonreeves@yahoo.com
Michael J. Repucci
Johnson & Repucci LLP
2521 Broadway St., Ste. A
Boulder, CO 80304
(303)442-1900
mjrepucci@j-rlaw.com
Website
Michael J. Repucci
Johnson & Repucci LLP
2521 Broadway St., Ste. A
Boulder, CO 80304
(303)442-1900
mjrepucci@j-rlaw.com
|
|
| CBA Staff
Dana Collier Smith
1900 Grant St., Ste. 900
Denver, CO 80203-4309
(303)860-1115
(303)894-0821 - fax
email: dcolliersmith@cobar.org
Michael Valdez
1900 Grant St., Ste. 900
Denver, CO 80203-4309
(303)860-1115
(303)894-0821 - fax
email:mavaldez@cobar.org
|
| CBA CLE
Gary Abrams
1900 Grant St., Ste. 300
Denver, CO 80203-4309
(303)860-0608
(303)894-0624 - fax
gabrams@cobar.org
Brock Wood
1900 Grant St., Ste. 300
Denver, CO 80203-4309
(303)860-0608
(303)894-0624 - fax
bwood@cobar.org
|
| Membership & Practice Development Committee
Cynthia M. Stovall
Sherman & Howard LLC
633 17th St., #3000
Denver, CO 80202
(303)299-8339
cstovall@sah.com
David L. Osborn
The Osborn Law Firm LLC
217 W. Olive Street
Ft. Collins, CO 80521
(970)484-2928
|
|
|
Cart - empty 
