Sisters v. ACM

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 19, 2024
• Docket: 23CA2129
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

23CA2129 Sisters v ACM 09-19-2024

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 23CA2129 City and County of Denver District Court No. 22CV31321 Honorable Martin F. Egelhoff, Judge

Sisters of Color United for Education, d/b/a HEAL Denver, a Colorado nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ACM Park Hill JV VII, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division VII Opinion by JUDGE SCHUTZ Tow and Pawar, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced September 19, 2024

Achieve Law Group, LLC, Aaron A. Boschee, Jerome A. DeHerrera, Benjamin P. Meade, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Holley, Albertson & Polk, P.C., Dennis B. Polk, Eric E. Torgersen, Lakewood, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, ACM Park Hill JV VII, LLC (ACM), appeals the trial

court’s orders granting plaintiff, Sisters of Color United for

Education, d/b/a HEAL Denver (Sisters of Color), costs and

prejudgment interest. We affirm the awards of both costs and

prejudgment interest.

I. Background

¶2 Sisters of Color entered into a lease with ACM, which included

Sisters of Color paying for the construction of substantial

improvements to the leased property.1 In a separate appeal, Case

No. 23CA1785, we set forth the circumstances surrounding the

parties’ dispute and affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of

Sisters of Color on its unjust enrichment claim.

¶3 After entering judgment, the trial court awarded Sisters of

Color its reasonable costs incurred in litigation and prejudgment

interest. ACM appeals both awards.

1 Holleran Property Management & Development, LLC was also a

defendant at trial. Holleran does not appeal the lower court’s orders.

1 II. Analysis

¶4 Sisters of Color timely sought an award of costs under section

13-16-104, C.R.S. 2024, and C.R.C.P. 54(d). Sisters of Color also

sought a prejudgment interest award under section 5-12-102(1),

C.R.S. 2024. ACM did not respond to either motion.

¶5 The trial court awarded Sisters of Color $25,801.61 in costs

and $36,903.07 in prejudgment interest. The sole basis of ACM’s

challenge to both awards is its contention that if we reverse the trial

court’s entry of judgment on the unjust enrichment claim, then

Sisters of Color will no longer be the prevailing party and hence

without a legal basis to recover costs and prejudgment interest.

¶6 C.R.C.P. 54(d) provides that “reasonable costs shall be allowed

as of course to the prevailing party.” Section 5-12-102(1)(a) allows

for the award of prejudgment interest and controls in a claim that

does not involve a personal injury. M.G. Dyess, Inc. v. MarkWest

Liberty Midstream & Res., LLC, 2022 COA 108, ¶ 36.

¶7 The court awarded Sisters of Color costs and prejudgment

interest because it prevailed on its unjust enrichment claim. ACM

does not contend that the trial court awarded Sisters of Color an

2 unreasonable amount of costs or that it miscalculated prejudgment

interest.

¶8 We agree with ACM that if the underlying judgment in Case

No. 23CA1785 had been reversed, then the award of costs and

prejudgment interest would also need to be reversed. However, we

have affirmed the trial court’s order in Case No. 23CA1785.

Therefore, ACM has asserted no grounds for overturning the trial

court’s order.

III. Disposition

¶9 We affirm the trial court’s orders awarding Sisters of Color

costs and prejudgment interest.

JUDGE TOW and JUDGE PAWAR concur.