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. [S36]

Limits of this entry

The complaint establishes what Tresana pleaded on October 27, 2025. Its allegations and quoted correspondence have not been tested against the exhibits, defendants’ responses or court rulings. Exhibits A–C are absent from the supplied copy; the user reports that they are not uploaded to Trellis as of September 30, 2026. No settlement, damages award, injunction or current lien balance is established. The separate June 2026 Tresana 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

Allegations and requested relief

These details come from Tresana’s pleading. The underlying agreements, payment records, correspondence and 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 and events alleged in the complaint

1. Jun 26, 2023
   Contract execution alleged

   Tresana says it executed the Insurance Proceeds Contract after the June 22 tornado, at the urging of its manager, RowCal Management CO, LLC. That manager is mentioned in the allegations but is not a named defendant in this complaint.

   [S36] pp. 1–3, caption and ¶¶ 7–10
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. Aug 1, 2025
   Lien demand alleged

   Tresana says RowCal demanded $4,604,434.17, asserting completed repairs worth $6,107,564.87. Tresana disputes the demanded amount. The demand letter is identified as Exhibit C, absent from this copy.

   [S36] pp. 7–8, ¶¶ 51–53
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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

Request the missing exhibits from the Douglas County court clerk; the user reports they are unavailable on Trellis. Current docket and any entered outcome or injunction orders; Exhibits A (Insurance Proceeds Contract), B (Attorney Fee Indemnification Agreement), and C (August 1 demand and lien notice); defendants’ answers/counterclaims; original liens and every partial release; payment accounting and October 20 correspondence if filed. Separately obtain the 2026 bond application/order before linking the proceedings.