Shareholder FAQ2019-02-27T12:11:27+00:00
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, et al., 280 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2012)2021-05-14T16:43:52+00:00

Case Conclusion Date: June 22, 2012
Practice Area: Foreclosure
Outcome: Reversed by Supreme Court; trial court upheld finding of no bid rigging

Description: Matt successfully argued for Colorado Supreme Court reversal of the Colorado Court of Appeals finding of bid rigging by attendees at a foreclosure sale in Pitkin County, Colorado. Matt won the case at the trial level proving that the members of an LLC, formed after the Public Trustee foreclosure sale by 3 bidders, had not bid rigged. Ferguson represented the LLC that was deemed by the Pitkin County Public Trustee to have been the successful high bidder at the 2007 foreclosure sale. The original property owner launched a series of challenges to the foreclosure sale against the Pitkin County Public Trustee, the foreclosing bank and Matt’s client. Matt defended all those proceedings in the Pitkin County District Court.

Civil Litigation2021-05-14T16:41:26+00:00

Civil litigation is all of the above. It means not criminal law. Civil cases often cross paths with the criminal system and we thus know prosecutors, defense lawyers and law enforcement people. We can and do work together when a civil case crosses over and vice versa.

The bottom line is this: Matt brought his New York City work ethic and intense training to a law practice in a small, but very sophisticated place. The Aspen and Vail-area communities are unique in the world. Our mountains and rivers have formed dynamic communities. Technology, transportation systems and communications have all caused a seismic shift in how we work and live. While we have evolved into the best year-round resorts and economies, it is also now possible and common to see people moving here to live full time and pursue their businesses, careers and professions. This influx is helping to sustain old ways and create new ways of living and the sensible expansion of communities like Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs/New Castle/Silt/Rifle, Avon/Edwards/Eagle and Vail. Technology also allows our firm and attorneys located in the Roaring Fork and Vail valleys to easily practice in three intermediate counties — Pitkin, Eagle and Garfield. We also stay connected the old-fashioned way, as the I-70 corridor connects us with the Grand Valley, Eagle Valley, Vail, and on down to Denver.

While we handle many large and sophisticated cases, we are not too big to help solve some small-town problems. We have helped our neighbors with residential lease disputes and car accidents. And we are comfortable in the courtroom, so we can take it to the mat when necessary. Stop by our office. If we are not the right firm to handle your problem, chances are, we know who is and can point you in the right direction.

Real Estate/Construction2021-05-14T16:41:42+00:00

The Roaring Fork and Vail Valley economies are based heavily in real estate, real estate development and construction. We have some of the most unique real estate in the world. Our markets are “lively” and often complex. As a result, all types of conflicts arise. Real estate and construction cases—and clients—arise in our mountain communities and resort economies. The size and complexity of these disputes cover the entire spectrum. We are always engaged in one or more real estate or construction law cases at any given time.

We represent contractor, property owners and managers, developers, lenders, homeowners associations, sub-contractors, engineers, architects, designers and the litany of others involved in acquisition, development, entitlements/land use, design and construction. We have handled numerous construction defect claims, mechanics liens, delay claims, insurance claims, issues involving high-value homes, contract negotiations and disputes. We also advise on the negotiation of construction agreements, owner-architect contracts and subcontracts, as well as enforcing remedies available under Colorado’s construction defect and construction lien laws.

Appellate Law2021-05-14T16:40:40+00:00

Trial courts make wrong decisions or things can go wrong. We like to say that all those law books are full of judges’ mistakes. This is how the common law and decisional law are developed. Trial court decisions go to a middle appellate court. For example, when a trial court in Pitkin, Eagle, Garfield or Denver County renders a decision a party thinks is wrong, the party can appeal the decision to the Colorado Court of Appeals. If the intermediary court makes a mistake in your view, you can ask for permission (seek certiorari) before a state supreme court or even the United States Supreme Court. This is where important law is developed, although it is rare in terms of the odds of a case going to these highest courts. Cases in appellate courts are briefed and then argued to a panel of judges or justices. We are experienced with the necessary analyses that must go into a successful appeal and the appellate process itself.

Arbitration/Mediation2021-05-14T16:42:03+00:00

Contract formation is when parties decide whether disputes will go to court or arbitration and whether mediation is required in the agreement. There are pros and cons with both arbitration and litigation. We counsel, advise and draft appropriate dispute resolution procedures at this stage. Mediation and arbitration are frequently termed “Alternative Dispute Resolution” or by the acronym “ADR,” meaning they are alternatives to a public court. There are many factors that come into play in such a decision: expense, right of appeal, speed of resolution, right to jury, qualifications of judges versus arbitrators, and privacy. In many types of contracts and industries arbitration is standard. Often banks or construction firms will require mediation in contracts that are not very negotiable. The lion’s share of securities agreements require arbitration.

Mediation: Mediation is a non-binding procedure. Courts almost always require mediation as part of pre-trial procedure. The parties can also arrange it on their initiative. Some construction and real estate contracts require parties to mediate before any type of legal action is started—the theory being that an early settlement should be tried before money is spent on lawyers in court. At a mediation, the two (or more sides) work with a mutually selected mediator to attempt to reach a resolution. It is often a good place in a case to see if the case can be settled. The adage is that a good mediated settlement is where both sides are equally pleased and displeased. We play a critical part in the mediation process.

Arbitration: Arbitration is litigation outside a court. It is binding – meaning one party wins and one loses. There is no appeal. A trial is a called “hearing,” and the judge or jury is a private and paid “arbitrator” assigned to your dispute by the terms of a contract. An arbitrator or panel of arbitrators hears both parties’ cases; the process can be simple or just as complicated and involved as any major lawsuit. The arbitrator’s decision is called an “award.” The award can then be enforced in a court by federal or state law. The skills and experience gained and used in trial are the same as those necessary in arbitration. We are very experienced in arbitrations.

Commercial & Complex Litigation2021-05-14T16:42:19+00:00

Commercial litigation arises out of transactions between two or more businesses. Disputes are generally over money or property but can be about getting an injunction for reasons such as unfair competition. Major personal transactions can also fall within the ambit of “commercial,” when, for example, there are significant property disputes in a divorce, a bankruptcy, a family business, a probate matter, a large real estate transaction, or the construction of a home or commercial space. Our law firm has experience in both bringing and defending against commercial litigation claims.

Breach of Contract and Disputes: Disputes can arise in any facet of your business, including those involving customers and employees, banks/lenders, transactions and agreements concerning real estate, leases and transactions to provide goods or services. Well-drafted contracts usually serve their purpose. Sometimes, however, disputes will arise. Disagreements can be resolved out of court and through negotiation (we often accomplish resolution this way), but some require litigation, arbitration, mediation or, at least, legal advice about how litigation might fit into an overall resolution framework. Often, parties disagree about the performance of a party or just about what the contract means. We have tried, litigated and resolved many contract interpretation disagreements. An important thing to remember in Colorado is that every contract has an implied duty of “good faith and fair dealing.” This means that a party that exercises some discretion with the contract terms must not overreach. These types of cases can arise where there is a simple contract or in HOA disputes, where a court will use this implied duty to cure bad acting.

Business Torts, Fraud, and Deceptive Trade Practices: Business torts (or wrongs) include misrepresentations and fraud. Contracts can be fraudulently obtained, overreaching or unconscionable. Fraud can be intentional or simply negligent. A misrepresentation can be on purpose or by mistake/negligence. All are actionable. There are statutory claims for deceptive trade practices, including under Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Interstate Lands Sales Full Disclosure Act (for deceptive real estate sales). These types of cases often arise where money and wealth are targeted by unethical or plain dishonest people.

Breach of Trust: Positions of trust or “fiduciary duty” include corporate officers, directors and major shareholders, limited liability company members/managers, agents (including types of real estate brokers), trustees, joint ventures, estate administrators, and partners in a business. They can and do breach their “fiduciary duties.” A shareholder, partner, LLC member, trust beneficiary, and others can recover damages or injunctive relief for these breaches. These are duties inherent in the relationship rather than a contract; although one often sees breaches of both in a business situation gone sour.

Collection of Debt: Breaches and failure to perform under agreements such as promissory notes, guaranty agreements, and mortgages/deeds of trust often create debt owed from one party to another. Court judgments can also create debt, which are subject to specific rules to collect.

Tortious Interference with Contract/Anti Trust: Interference with a contract is actionable conduct by an outside or third party that is not fair competition. It is not uncommon to see someone actively interfering with your contract. If the third party impedes or prevents contractual formation or performance, a tortious interference claim is often a powerful tool to stop the interference and obtain damages. A “cousin” of this tort is interference with “prospective business advantage,” which again is anti-competitive or just unfair behavior. We can tell the difference and often advise on and prosecute these claims. There are federal antitrust laws that have been enacted to protect competitive behavior, protect consumers and outlaw bid-rigging, price-fixing and monopolistic practices. Colorado has very similar antitrust laws that can be powerful tools often overlooked by lawyers. Colorado also has its own version of the federal RICO laws. These outlaw and prohibit enterprises that break various laws and come with private civil rights to sue and collect damages.

Alpine Property Real Estate Litigation2021-05-14T16:42:41+00:00

Practice Area: Litigation
Outcome: Jury verdict including damages for plaintiff clients in corporate dispute.

Description: Break-up of a real estate brokerage. Recovered for breaches of contract, civil theft, and misappropriation of trade secrets. $700,000 Verdict plus award of 95% of attorneys’ fees and all costs.

Willits Bend2022-03-21T18:27:11+00:00
Christensen2022-03-21T18:26:17+00:00

Practice Area: Litigation
Outcome: Case settled favorably for fire victims; policy limits paid. Attempts to prove additional insurance also contributed to settlement environment.

Description: Wild fire caused by careless welders destroyed and damaged numerous homes and property. Represented most of the homeowners and recovered damages.

Kendrick2022-03-21T18:19:51+00:00

Practice Area: Litigation/Contracts
Outcome: Favorable jury verdict for plaintiff clients for sales commissions and lost profits–$3.7 million, plus interest. Settled after verdict.

Description: Breach of contract and business tort case. Japanese manufacturer and U.S. distributor of radio-controlled cars breached sales representative contract. Tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

West LB v. Dancing Bear2021-05-14T16:43:41+00:00

Case Conclusion Date: May 1, 2012
Practice Area: Foreclosure/Work out/Bankruptcy
Outcome: Successful receivership and foreclosure of a major Aspen development. Lender liability claims dismissed on motion; fees application to be pursued. Successful sale of asset.

Description: Series of actions by client bank against developer borrower on multi-million-dollar loan default. Case pursued successfully through receivership, bankruptcy, foreclosure and retaliatory lender liability claims.

Mill Street2022-03-21T18:19:09+00:00

Case Conclusion Date: June 1, 2011
Practice Area: Litigation
Outcome: Settled favorably, garnering reimbursement for 100% of client deposits — approx. $15.0 Million

Description: Represented 56 plaintiffs — contract buyers of fractional interest in the Viceroy Hotel, Snowmass Village. Developer had delivered units with smaller square footage. Won liability case on summary judgment motion and defendants were found liable under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act. Deposits returned in full; and attorneys’ fees and interest awarded.

Grand Aspen2022-03-21T18:16:46+00:00

Case Conclusion Date: May 11, 2012
Practice Area: Litigation/Construction defect
Outcome: Favorable settlement for plaintiff clients prior to trial

Description: Failure of lateral support caused by excavation on Aspen Mountain for major development. Represented homeowner plaintiffs in a case involving complex geotechnical issues.

Elk Creek Ranches2022-03-21T18:15:51+00:00

Case Conclusion Date: October 21, 2013
Practice Area: Constitutional Law/Elections/Civil Rights
Outcome: Supreme Court agreed with our Client that Recall Section of Colorado Constitution violated United States Constitution.
Cite: 1013 CO 62

Description: 312 P.3d 153 Matt Ferguson represented the Libertarian Party of Colorado during the Senate Districts 3 and 11 recall elections of two State Senators – who were eventually recalled. Matt posed a question to the Colorado Secretary of State and the Attorney General concerning the [un]constitutionality of a prior participation requirement on the ballot. Based on our research and position, Governor John Hickenlooper then posed a rare and emergency Article VI, section 3, question to the Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over certain constitutional issues. The Supreme Court first accepted the Governor’s question -as posed by the this firm – because it was an important question specifically asking the Supreme Court whether a Colorado Constitutional provision governing the operation of recall elections conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. The posing and then acceptance of the interrogatory are in and of themselves very rare events.

Colorado’s high court then agreed with our client’s position and struck down the provision contained in Section 3 of Article XXI of the Colorado Constitution which required that, in the case of a recall election, the question of whether a particular incumbent should be recalled from office be on the same ballot as the list of replacements for that incumbent. Importantly, this section of the state constitution also required that, for a voter to be eligible to vote on who should replace the recalled incumbent, the voter must also vote on the question of whether the incumbent should be removed from office.

The Supreme Court held that this “prior participation requirement” unconstitutionally compelled voters to express a view on the question of whether or not to recall an elected official. The Colorado Supreme Court thus found that Article 21 § XXI of the Colorado Construction requiring that “no vote cast shall be counted for any candidate for such office, unless the voter also voted for or against a recall of such persons sought to recall from said office, conflicts with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”

The Court held: “[T]he United States Supreme Court’s precedent (and common sense) make clear that virtually no regulation that compels voters to take a position can pass constitutional muster.” This was a fascinating piece of a larger elections and constitutional law case – and we could find no case on Colorado of this having occurred before.

Nunc pellentesque augue sapien dignissim.2016-02-27T23:56:02+00:00

Aenean consequat lorem ut felis ullamcorper posuere gravida tellus faucibus. Maecenas dolor elit, pulvinar eu vehicula eu, consequat et lacus. Duis et purus ipsum. In auctor mattis ipsum id molestie. Donec risus nulla, fringilla a rhoncus vitae, semper a massa. Vivamus ullamcorper, enim sit amet consequat laoreet, tortor tortor dictum urna, ut egestas urna ipsum nec libero. Nulla justo leo, molestie vel tempor nec, egestas at massa. Aenean pulvinar, felis porttitor iaculis pulvinar, odio orci sodales odio, ac pulvinar felis quam sit.

Aenean pretium felis vel purus bibendum luctus.2016-02-27T23:49:54+00:00

Sed rhoncus viverra gravida. Aliquam lobortis nulla sit amet tincidunt tincidunt. Maecenas pulvinar maximus massa, nec eleifend turpis ornare sit amet. Nullam eget malesuada erat. Morbi volutpat, ante nec pharetra suscipit, augue nulla porttitor dolor, nec lacinia eros elit id arcu. Vivamus ultricies est eget sapien congue volutpat. Curabitur ac ipsum et orci accumsan scelerisque. Quisque porttitor a massa ac porttitor. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Curabitur vitae nibh vitae justo sagittis lacinia. Donec nec suscipit dolor. Aliquam ullamcorper nulla nec massa vestibulum mattis. Maecenas ullamcorper lacus in augue rhoncus consectetur et eu felis.

Go to Top