Martin v. Allen

15 Citing cases

  1. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, L.L.C. v. Flood

    278 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2012)   Cited 25 times
    Stating that rationale of general rule against non-clients raising issue of ethical violations "is to prevent the Rules of Professional Conduct from being used as a procedural weapon by opposing parties and thereby subverting the purpose of the rules, which is to protect clients"

    This includes appellate attorneys' fees because to deny appellate attorneys' fees to consumers who are forced to prosecute an appeal would undercut the objectives of the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 566 P.2d 1075, 1076 (1977) (applying this rationale to award appellate attorneys' fees in an action under the security deposit statute). Debt collectors could then, by the simple act of filing an appeal, effectively discourage consumers from obtaining legal redress.

  2. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, L.L.C. v. Flood

    2012 CO 38 (Colo. 2012)

    This includes appellate attorneys' fees because to deny appellate attorneys' fees to consumers who are forced to prosecute an appeal would undercut the objectives of the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Martin v. Allen,566 P.2d 1075, 1076 (Colo. 1977) (applying this rationale to award appellate attorneys' fees in an action under the security deposit statute). Debt collectors could then, by the simple act of filing an appeal, effectively discourage consumers from obtaining legal redress.

  3. Pak v. Hoang

    378 Md. 315 (Md. 2003)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that Real Prop. § 8-203(e) is remedial because it permits an award of treble damages if a landlord fails to return all or part of a security deposit within 45 days without a reasonable basis

    Cases from other states additionally support our interpretation of § 8-203(e)(4), as several courts have held that similar attorney's fees provisions of security deposit statutes apply to post-trial motions and/or appeals. In Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 566 P.2d 1075 (1977), the Supreme Court of Colorado reversed a lower court decision refusing to allow attorney's fees for an appeal. In holding that a tenant could be awarded attorney's fees for an appeal relating to that state's security deposit statute, the court stated that the Colorado statute:

  4. Anderson v. Rosebrook

    737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that common-law doctrine of accord and satisfaction not altered by Section 1-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code

    The Act recognizes the unequal bargaining positions of the landlord-tenant relationship. In Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 566 P.2d 1075 (1977), we held that the Act is designed "to assist tenants in vindicating their legal rights and to equalize the disparity in power which exists between landlord and tenant" in conflicts over security deposits. Id. at 396, 566 P.2d at 1076.

  5. Mishkin v. Young

    198 P.3d 1269 (Colo. App. 2008)   Cited 8 times
    In Mishkin v. Young, 198 P.3d 1269 (Colo.App.2008), the division considered a statute allowing a tenant to sue a landlord for willful retention of a security deposit.

    Consistent with the legislative declaration and these rules of statutory construction, the supreme court has construed the Act's attorney fee provisions broadly in favor of tenants. It has held successful tenants "entitled" to attorney fees for appellate as well as trial court litigation. Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 396, 566 P.2d 1075, 1076 (1977). This holding relied on the Act's "salutary" purposes:

  6. Five Points Mgmt. Grp. v. Campaign, Inc.

    No. 23-1125 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2024)

    Our reasoning accords with the Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning in Schneiker v. Gordon, 732 P.2d 603, 610 n.4 (Colo. 1987) (en banc) (citing Martin v. Allen, 566 P.2d 1075, 1076 (Colo. 1977)), where the court concluded that

  7. Cagle v. Mathers Family Trust

    295 P.3d 460 (Colo. 2013)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that "[c]ontract law governs the issues relating to the interpretation and enforcement of a forum selection clause"

    The WWSDA is “designed to assist tenants in vindicating their legal rights and to equalize the disparity in power which exists between landlord and tenant in conflicts over such relatively small sums.” Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 396, 566 P.2d 1075, 1076 (1977). Colorado has an interest in regulating landlord-tenant relations throughout the state so state residents have an expectation of consistency.

  8. Mishkin v. Young

    107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005)   Cited 16 times
    Illustrating treble damages under Colo.Rev.Stat. § 38–12–103 are non-additive

    It is designed to assist tenants in vindicating their legal rights and to equalize the disparity in power which exists between landlord and tenant. Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 396, 566 P.2d 1075, 1076 (1977). Therefore, we hold that a landlord who fails to account for a tenant's security deposit within the statutory time period set forth in section 38-12-103(1) may not avoid treble damages by accounting for a security deposit during the subsequent seven-day period established by section 38-12-103(3)(a).

  9. Schneiker v. Gordon

    732 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1987)   Cited 50 times
    Concluding that sublessor fulfilled duty to mitigate sublessee's breach by surrendering primary lease

    On several occasions we have recognized that the parties to a residential lease are not in the same relative position, at least with regard to the equality of bargaining power between them, as are parties to a typical commercial lease. See, e.g., Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 566 P.2d 1075 (1977) (recognizing that § 38-12-101 through -103, 16A C.R.S.(1982), governing wrongful withholding of security deposits by residential landlords, was enacted to equalize the disparity in power which exists between landlord and tenant over relatively small sums). It remains for future determination whether differences in the form, subject matter, and the interests of society as among various types of leases warrant that there be differences in treatment with respect to the same or similar problems and issues.

  10. Mau v. E.P.H. Corp.

    638 P.2d 777 (Colo. 1981)   Cited 24 times
    Evaluating reasonableness of attorney's fees in light of factors set forth in DR 2-106(B), Colo. Code Prof. Resp.

    Torres v. Portillos, 638 P.2d 274 (Colo. 1981); Ball v. Weller, 39 Colo. App. 14, 563 P.2d 371 (1977); Martin v. Allen, 193 Colo. 395, 566 P.2d 1075 (1977). Reasonable attorneys' fees under the security deposit statute have been awarded often, Torres v. Portillos, supra; Martinez v. Steinbaum, 623 P.2d 49 (Colo.