Tresana Townhome Association v. RowCal Construction and Maintenance et al.

What the records show

Tresana’s filed complaint asserts eight claims against two RowCal entities over tornado repairs, disputed payments and mechanic’s liens. It alleges incomplete work, excessive liens and interference with replacement contractors, and requests damages and injunctive relief. The separately reviewed exhibits include the repair contract, attorney-fee indemnity agreement and RowCal’s August 1 demand letter, which attributes part of the disputed balance to code-required work outside the appraisal scope. [S36] [S51] [S52] [S53]

Limits of this entry

The complaint establishes what Tresana pleaded on October 27, 2025. Exhibits A–C were obtained from Douglas County and reviewed separately on October 7, 2026. They establish the written contract terms and RowCal’s stated pre-suit position, not performance, the amount owed, lien validity or liability. The PDFs are not hosted; citations identify each exhibit and its PDF page, with a court records-request route in the source notes. Defendants’ answers, the present register, court rulings, payment records and the supporting attachments referenced in the demand letter remain missing. No settlement, damages award, injunction or current lien balance is established. The separate June 2026 bond proceeding remains a lead; its connection to these liens needs the actual application and order.

Claims as pleaded

The eight claim headings below follow the complaint. Statutory references identify the provisions Tresana invokes; this entry does not decide their applicability. “Both defendants” means RowCal Construction and Maintenance, LLC and RowCal Colorado, LLC. All page references use the printed complaint pages.

1. Excessive lien

Against RowCal C&M. Tresana seeks attorney fees and damages under C.R.S. § 38-35-109(3), alleging materially overstated liens and refusal to release the excess. [S36] p. 9, ¶¶ 64–68

2. Slander of title

Against RowCal C&M. The complaint invokes C.R.S. § 38-22-128 and alleges the liens and partial releases claim amounts RowCal knew exceeded what was due. [S36] pp. 9–10, ¶¶ 69–72

3. Declaratory and injunctive relief

Against both defendants. Tresana requests release of liens except to the extent amounts are demonstrated to be due, restrictions on further liens and interference with contractors, and cooperation in finishing repairs. [S36] p. 10, ¶¶ 73–80

4. Breach of the Insurance Proceeds Contract

Against both defendants. Tresana alleges failure to finish the agreed work and demands for payment beyond the contract. [S36] p. 11, ¶¶ 81–85

5. Breach of the Attorney Fee Indemnification Agreement

Against RowCal C&M. Tresana alleges failure to complete the agreed repairs and demands for amounts excluded by the agreement. [S36] p. 11, ¶¶ 86–90

6. Breach of good faith and fair dealing under the repair contract

Against both defendants. Allegations include use of repair funds for legal fees, unauthorized work, abandoned repairs, additional payment demands and excessive liens. [S36] pp. 11–12, ¶¶ 91–96

7. Breach of good faith and fair dealing under the indemnity agreement

Against RowCal C&M. Tresana alleges conduct inconsistent with the promise to complete repairs without additional cost beyond the deductible. [S36] p. 12, ¶¶ 97–102

8. Intentional interference with contractual relations

Against both defendants. Tresana alleges that one or both contacted its replacement contractor, threatened litigation and attempted to discourage performance. [S36] p. 13, ¶¶ 103–106

What the reviewed exhibits say

Exhibits A–C were received from Douglas County on October 7, 2026. Page citations below use PDF page numbers within each exhibit. These summaries describe the documents; contract interpretation and the parties’ disputed performance have not been decided in the records reviewed.

Repair price and its exceptions

Exhibit A names RowCal Colorado, LLC as contractor. It conditions both parties’ obligations on the contractor accepting the insurer’s scope and price. It states that repairs carry no additional customer cost beyond the deductible, but lists exceptions for customer-requested work outside the insurer’s loss statement, code-required repairs not payable by insurance, and emergency repairs. Necessary supplemental work identified later is included in the agreement. [S51] Exhibit A, PDF p. 1

Written changes, timing and payment

Section 2 requires written change orders signed by the contractor and customer. Section 3 calls for work to begin within 90 days after scope/price approval, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and substantial completion within six months of commencement, with stated extensions and delay exceptions. Section 11 requires the initial insurer payment before work starts, makes final payment due on substantial completion and invoices payable within 30 days, and provides for overdue charges capped at the lesser of 18% annually or the legal maximum, plus collection costs. [S51] Exhibit A, PDF p. 2, §§ 2–3, 11

Other terms relevant to the dispute

The contract gives notice of a mechanic’s lien for nonpayment. Section 4 disclaims nonstatutory warranties and contains notice and inspection provisions for claims. Section 10 specifies cancellation charges if the customer cancels without legal right: actual costs plus 20% of the agreement price before work starts, or the full agreement price after work starts. These are contract provisions, not rulings that a lien or charge is valid or recoverable. [S51] Exhibit A, PDF p. 2, §§ 1, 4, 10

Attorney-fee payment promise

Exhibit B names RowCal Construction & Maintenance CO, LLC as the party agreeing to pay fees Tresana owes under its separate contingent-fee agreement with Smith Jadin Johnson, PLLC. The recitals describe a 15% fee on an increase above Travelers’ $1,310,155.17 valuation, plus applicable costs. Sections II–III require RowCal to pay the covered fee within 30 days after receiving an invoice. The exhibit does not establish what was actually invoiced or paid. [S52] Exhibit B, PDF pp. 1–2 and 5–6, recitals and §§ II–III

Reaffirmed repair commitment and counterparts

In exchange for the fee-payment promise, section I reaffirms performance of the repair scope once the dispute is resolved, at no cost to Tresana except the applicable insurance deductible. Section V requires signed written amendments. Two four-page counterparts carry separate signatures: the contractor’s dated December 19, 2023 and the association’s dated December 23, 2023. The agreement permits execution in counterparts. [S52] Exhibit B, PDF pp. 2–4 and 6–8, §§ I, V, IX and signature pages

RowCal’s demand and cost breakdown

RowCal’s counsel states that repairs worth $6,107,564.87 were performed on 30 of 41 buildings and demands $4,604,434.17 as unpaid. The letter divides the demand into $3,579,175.38 for work in the insurance award and $1,025,258.79 for additional code-required repairs. Those two components sum to the demanded amount. They remain RowCal’s asserted figures, not an established debt or current lien balance. [S53] Exhibit C, PDF p. 2

RowCal’s reason for charging beyond the appraisal scope

The letter argues that the appraisal allowed reuse of some roof components, while county requirements called for removal down to the roof deck. It relies on the contract’s uninsured code-repair exception and supplemental-work language to justify the additional $1,025,258.79. It cites a JBA Consulting inspection and a New Rome Enterprises review as supporting compliance. Neither report is included in this six-page exhibit, so their findings and RowCal’s code interpretation have not been independently verified here. [S53] Exhibit C, PDF pp. 2–4

Lien notice and conditional release proposal

The August 1 letter demands full payment within ten days and states an intent to impose liens on all 30 repaired buildings. If paid within that period, RowCal proposes to refrain from recording liens and execute a mutual release, including claims for payment or work on the remaining 11 buildings. Otherwise it asserts rights to the full contract price as cancellation damages, 18% interest and collection fees. This is a conditional proposal and statement of RowCal’s position; it does not establish a settlement, recorded lien, damages entitlement or award. [S53] Exhibit C, PDF p. 5

Allegations and requested relief

These details come from Tresana’s pleading. The two agreements and August 1 demand are now summarized above; payment records, other correspondence and recorded liens remain to be reviewed.

Contract terms described by Tresana

Tresana says the Insurance Proceeds Contract limited its cost to the insurance deductible, conditioned the agreement on contractor approval of the insurer’s scope and price, and required signed written change orders. It also alleges a separate agreement under which RowCal C&M would pay fees owed to Smith Jain Johnson, PLLC (SJJ). [S36] pp. 3–4, ¶¶ 11–15, 23–28

Insurance and legal-fee accounting

Tresana alleges an appraisal award comprising $3,744,390.43 from Travelers and $3,199,591.71 from homeowner policy deductibles, totaling $6,943,982.14, followed by an adjustment of about $62,753. Paragraph 31 describes $854,487.82 paid to SJJ, including fees and an appraisal reimbursement; Tresana alleges the payments depleted funds designated for repairs. [S36] pp. 4–5, ¶¶ 20, 28–31

Work completed and work disputed

The complaint acknowledges RowCal completed 30 full roof replacements. It alleges the remaining 11 were not completed by RowCal, that Academy Roofing completed or substantially completed those roofs, and that warranties for RowCal’s 30 roofs had not been received despite requests. [S36] pp. 5–7, ¶¶ 33–46

Effects on homeowners alleged

Tresana alleges liens clouded title to 30 buildings containing 80 townhomes and affected at least two homeowners attempting a sale or refinancing. [S36] p. 10, ¶ 75

Relief requested; no dollar judgment

The prayer requests damages in an amount to be proven at trial, costs, expenses, attorney fees, interest and other appropriate relief. Tresana demands a jury on triable claims. These are requests, not awards. [S36] p. 13, prayer for relief and jury demand

Figures requiring reconciliation

These inconsistencies appear in the supplied pleading. The archive preserves the stated figures and does not choose a corrected amount.

Two different partial-release balances

Paragraph 58 gives $2,027,577.09 after partial releases. Paragraph 60 refers to $2,027,677.09 as the then-current blanket lien, a $100 difference. [S36] p. 8, ¶¶ 58, 60

Payment components do not match the stated total

Paragraph 57 lists $4,481,390.15 in contractor/vendor payments and $852,332.56 in SJJ payments, but states a total of $5,335,877.96. The listed components sum to $5,333,722.71. Paragraph 31 separately reports $854,487.82 paid to SJJ; using that number would produce $5,335,877.97. Supporting records are needed to reconcile the differences. [S36] p. 5, ¶ 31; p. 8, ¶ 57

Further lien reduction described as an intention

Paragraph 61 quotes an October 20 email stating an intention to reduce the total lien to $1,173,089.27 and record partial releases that week. The complaint does not establish that these further releases were recorded; paragraph 62 discusses them conditionally. [S36] pp. 8–9, ¶¶ 61–62

Filing, agreement dates and parties’ stated events

1. Jun 26, 2023
   Repair contract customer signature

   Exhibit A bears a customer signature dated June 26, 2023 and a contractor signature dated June 22, 2023. It names RowCal Colorado, LLC as contractor.

   [S51] Exhibit A, PDF p. 1, acceptance and signatures
2. Dec 19, 2023
   Fee-indemnity contractor counterpart signed

   The first counterpart bears RowCal Construction & Maintenance CO, LLC’s signature dated December 19, 2023.

   [S52] Exhibit B, PDF p. 4
3. Dec 23, 2023
   Fee-indemnity association counterpart signed

   The second counterpart bears Tresana’s signature dated December 23, 2023.

   [S52] Exhibit B, PDF p. 8
4. Jun 21, 2024
   Appraisal award alleged

   Tresana describes an insurance appraisal award totaling $6,943,982.14 and covering roofing work on 41 buildings along with other repairs.

   [S36] p. 4, ¶¶ 20–21
5. Aug 19, 2024
   Roofing work allegedly began

   Tresana says RowCal C&M began roof replacement through Holladay Grace Roofing, described in the complaint as its subcontractor/affiliate.

   [S36] p. 5, ¶ 33
6. Dec 13, 2024
   Thirty roofs allegedly completed

   Tresana says RowCal completed 30 full roof replacements around this date. It alleges the planned March 2025 resumption did not occur and only minimal additional repairs followed in May.

   [S36] pp. 5–6, ¶¶ 35–36
7. Mar 6, 2025
   Additional payment allegedly demanded

   Tresana alleges RowCal required a new contract and an additional $1,363,729.69 before it would resume work on the remaining 11 roofs.

   [S36] p. 6, ¶ 37
8. Apr 9, 2025
   Settlement proposal allegedly rejected

   Tresana says it sent a proposal on April 4 and RowCal rejected it on April 9, sending a proposed change order and invoice spreadsheet. The complaint alleges an unsuccessful proposal, not a completed settlement.

   [S36] p. 6, ¶¶ 39–42
9. May 23, 2025
   Contractor-interference objection alleged

   Tresana describes a cease-and-desist letter alleging a RowCal employee threatened a replacement contractor with litigation. It alleges no response was received.

   [S36] p. 7, ¶¶ 48–50
10. Aug 1, 2025
    Payment demand and lien notice

    RowCal’s counsel demands $4,604,434.17, asserts completed repairs worth $6,107,564.87 and gives a ten-day payment deadline before recording liens.

    [S53] Exhibit C, PDF pp. 2, 5
11. Aug 11, 2025
    Lien recording alleged

    Tresana alleges RowCal began recording blanket liens around this date with a total face amount of $4,604,434.17, then recorded partial releases after Tresana supplied payment records. Dates of the partial releases are not given.

    [S36] p. 8, ¶¶ 55–59
12. Oct 20, 2025
    Further reduction described in quoted email

    The complaint quotes RowCal’s counsel proposing a further reduction to $1,173,089.27, while disputing Tresana’s proposed $834,439.91 calculation. Actual recording of that further reduction is unverified.

    [S36] pp. 8–9, ¶¶ 60–62
13. Oct 27, 2025
    Complaint filed

    The court filing stamp records the complaint at 5:12 p.m. in case 2025CV31144. The complaint contains eight claims and a jury demand.

    [S36] p. 1, filing stamp; pp. 9–13, claims and jury demand

Sources for this entry

Next record to obtain

Exhibits A–C have been received and reviewed; no repeat request is needed. Obtain the current register and entered outcome or injunction orders; defendants’ answers/counterclaims and amendments; original recorded liens and every partial release; payment accounting and October 20 correspondence if filed. Obtain the appraisal award, insurer loss statements, signed change orders, JBA Consulting and New Rome Enterprises reports, BG2 Lien Breakdown and notice/service records referenced in Exhibit C if filed or otherwise accessible. Obtain SJJ’s contingent-fee agreement, invoices and payment records if filed. Separately obtain the 2026 bond application/order before linking the proceedings.