From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Watson v. Cal-Three, LLC
Colorado Court of Appeals
254 P.3d 1189 (2011)
In 1999, Brandon Park, LLC (Brandon Park) borrowed funds from First United Bank (FUB) to develop townhomes. Watson (plaintiff) guaranteed repayment of the loan in return for a fee. Brandon Park hired Calahan Construction Company (Calahan) as the general contractor. After Brandon Park experienced difficulty paying Calahan, Brandon Park agreed to transfer all its rights in the project to Cal-Three, LLC (Cal-Three) (defendant), an entity created by Calahan’s principal. This agreement was arranged for in a series of new agreements. Watson participated in the negotiation of these new agreements. In August 2002, Watson sent Cal-Three a notice stating that Cal-Three was in default of the new agreements, in part for failing to pay the outstanding balance due to FUB. On October 24, 2002, a completed townhome in the project was due to close. The title company requested a payoff letter from Watson for the specific townhouse in connection with the closing. Watson instead sent the title company a payoff amount for the entire project. As a result, the sale of the townhome did not occur. Watson then brought the instant suit against Cal-Three requesting a receiver for the property. Watson afterwards paid the balance owed to FUB and filed an action to foreclose the deed of trust on December 2002. A foreclosure sale was held in February 2003, at which time Watson purchased the property. Watson later sold the completed townhomes for $414,326.55 and the remaining land for $783,000. At trial in the instant action, the court found that Cal-Three had not been in default of the new agreements when Watson sent the default letter in August 2002. The trial court found in favor of Cal-Three and awarded it the amount of profits it realized from the sale, which amounted to $414,326.55 for the townhomes and $783,000 for the land. Watson appealed, arguing that the damages awarded to Cal-Three were erroneously calculated.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Casebolt, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.