## Facts

- A condominium declaration created the Telluride Lodge Association and gave it exclusive responsibility for management, maintenance, repair, and improvement of the common elements.
- The declaration required unit owners, by accepting their deeds, to pay regular and special assessments, including for capital improvements.
- The Town of Telluride determined the complex’s flat roofs were unsafe due to severe leaking and inability to support heavy snow, and threatened condemnation if repairs were not made.
- The association’s board reviewed three architect-prepared repair proposals; unit-owner defendants preferred a plan minimizing exterior changes but requiring extensive interior alterations.
- The association selected a plan to install pitched roofs over the flat roofs, which eliminated certain clerestory windows in defendants’ units.
- To pay for the work, the association imposed an annual per-unit assessment; defendants refused to pay.
- The association recorded liens for the unpaid assessments and sued to recover the assessments and foreclose the liens.
- Defendants challenged the association’s authority, the reasonableness of the chosen plan, alleged procedural/notice defects, and sought disqualification of the trial judge.
- The association sought attorney’s fees under the declaration.

## Issues

1. Whether the condominium declaration authorized the association to repair and improve the roofs as common elements and levy assessments over objecting owners, rendering inapplicable common-law cotenancy limits on unilateral improvements.
2. Whether the association acted unreasonably or abused its discretion in selecting the pitched-roof plan.
3. Whether asserted notice or procedural defects barred enforcement of the assessment and liens.
4. Whether the trial judge was required to be disqualified for alleged conflicts or bias.
5. Whether the trial court erred by denying attorney’s fees allegedly authorized by the declaration without taking evidence or making findings.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment enforcing the assessments and authorizing foreclosure of the liens.
- The court held the association’s authority derived from the condominium declaration, which bound unit owners to pay assessments for common-element repair and improvement.
- The court rejected the claim that common-law cotenancy rules requiring consent for improvements controlled where a declaration allocates management authority to an association.
- The court found no basis to overturn the association’s decision as unreasonable, given the safety order and the board’s consideration of multiple professional proposals.
- The court declined to invalidate the assessment based on alleged notice/procedural defects where the arguments were not preserved in the pretrial order and no prejudice was shown.
- The court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to disqualify himself absent a showing of a direct pecuniary interest or actual bias.
- The court reversed the denial of attorney’s fees and remanded for the trial court to take evidence and make findings on entitlement and reasonableness under the declaration.

## Legal Principles

- A condominium declaration functions as a binding agreement among unit owners and the association; its allocation of authority to manage and repair common elements governs disputes over repairs and assessments.
- Common-law cotenancy restrictions on unilateral improvements do not control where a condominium regime contractually vests management and repair authority in an association and obligates owners to fund common-element work.
- Courts generally uphold an association’s choice among reasonable repair options for common elements, particularly when addressing safety conditions and compliance with governmental directives, absent proof of arbitrariness or bad faith.
- Appellate review of procedural objections may be barred when issues are not preserved in the pretrial order; alleged notice defects also require a showing of prejudice to warrant relief.
- Judicial disqualification requires a concrete pecuniary interest or demonstrable bias; speculative conflicts are insufficient.
- When a declaration provides for attorney’s fees in enforcement actions, a court must receive evidence and make findings on entitlement and reasonableness rather than summarily denying fees.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the condominium declaration’s grant of authority to the association to repair unsafe common elements and collect assessments through liens and foreclosure, rejected challenges based on cotenancy doctrine, unreasonableness, notice, and judicial bias, and required further proceedings on contractual attorney’s fees because the trial court denied fees without evidentiary support or findings.


Telluride Lodge Ass'n v. Zoline, 707 P.2d 998 (Colo. App. 1985)