Caplan & Earnest Secures Favorable Easement Ruling for Boulder HOA Following Bench Trial

Caplan & Earnest has obtained a favorable judgment on behalf of a Boulder homeowners association following a two-day bench trial in Boulder County District Court. 

Attorneys Doug Stevens and Elliott Hood tried the case, with significant support from colleagues Tori Whitelaw, Andrew Salazar, Carrie Armknecht, Melinda Glenn and Caroline Jennings.  

The dispute concerned a 1985 landscape and access easement over a property neighboring the condominium community represented by the firm. The neighboring property owners sought a declaratory judgment permitting them to expand their building’s footprint into the easement area. On behalf of the association, Caplan & Earnest argued that the proposed expansion was inconsistent with the easement’s language, purpose, and intent. 

Reconstructing the Easement’s Original Purpose  

Because the easement was created more than 40 years ago, the trial required the firm’s litigation team to reconstruct the circumstances surrounding its creation. Caplan & Earnest presented testimony from an individual involved in the original development, along with historical planning materials, a decades-old account from an original resident and evidence showing how current residents have used and maintained the easement area for the past 25 years. 

Following testimony from eight witnesses and the admission of 60 exhibits, the court concluded that the easement was intended to preserve more than a path for entering and leaving the condominium property. It also protected open space that association residents could access and use for landscaping, gardening, and other activities, and in fact, have used for such purposes since the community was created in the 1980s. 

Court Rejects the Proposed Expansion  

In its Final Order and Judgment, the court ruled that: 

• The easement covers the neighboring property except for the existing building footprint and parking area. 

• The association has the right to access and perform landscaping throughout the easement area. 

• The proposed expansion beyond the neighboring building’s existing footprint was not permitted by the easement. 

• The proposed expansion was not a reasonable modification because it would diminish the easement’s utility, burden the association’s use and enjoyment of the easement, and frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created. 

The court entered judgment in the association’s favor on the neighboring owners’ claims and partially granted the association’s request for declaratory relief. The ruling was limited to the proposed expansion before the court; it did not decide whether every conceivable minor or hypothetical future modification would be impermissible, as such a determination would be speculative and constitute an advisory opinion.  

“This case was a great opportunity to combine historical research, witness testimony and property-law principles to demonstrate why the easement was created and how it continues to benefit the community today,” said Mr. Hood, who heads Caplan & Earnest’s Litigation practice. “This truly was a firmwide effort, not just a litigation win, and I am proud we were able to secure this great result for our very deserving clients.”  

The matter is Soper v. 624 Pearl Street Residences Community Association, Boulder County District Court Case No. 2024CV30937.