Sweet v. Dodson

── Sweet v. Dodson ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 25CA0324 Sweet v Dodson 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 25CA0324 Arapahoe County District Court No. 20CV32068 Honorable Thomas Henderson, Judge James Sweet and Mary Sweet, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William Dodson and Janis Dodson, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division VI Opinion by JUDGE SCHOCK Grove and Yun, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 First & Fourteenth PLLC, Julian R. Ellis, Jr., Colorado Springs, Colorado; First & Fourteenth PLLC, Michael Francisco, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs- Appellants Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P., Byeongsook Seo, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants- Appellees ¶1 Plaintiffs, James and Mary Sweet (the Sweets), appeal the order awarding attorney fees to defendants, William and Janis Dodson (the Dodsons), under section 13-17-102, C.R.S. 2025. They contend that the district court erred by (1) finding the action lacked substantial justification; (2) failing to make required findings under section 13-17-103(1), C.R.S. 2025; and (3) admitting evidence of another property dispute between the Sweets and a neighbor. ¶2 We affirm the order to the extent the district court found under section 13-17-102 that the Sweets brought or defended this action, in whole or in part, without substantial justification. But we conclude that the district court erred by failing to consider and make findings concerning the factors in section 13-17-103(1) in determining whether to assess attorney fees and the amount of fees to be assessed. We therefore reverse the attorney fee order in part and remand the case for the district court to make those findings. I. Background ¶3 The Sweets and Dodsons are next-door neighbors. In 2015, the Sweets began a major backyard renovation that would blur the property lines between their property and the Dodsons’. The Dodsons agreed to the project with certain conditions, including 1  that the property lines would not change and that the Sweets would memorialize the arrangement in a written agreement. ¶4 The Sweets did not provide the Dodsons with a draft agreement until the project was nearly complete. By then, the neighbors’ relationship had become strained. The Dodsons refused to sign the agreement because it included terms the parties had never discussed while omitting terms they had agreed upon. ¶5 The Sweets then launched what the district court described as a “campaign to pressure the Dodsons into executing later versions of the [d]raft [a]greement.” That campaign escalated into conduct that the district court characterized as “harassment and stalking.” The Dodsons never signed the agreement and, in April 2020, revoked their permission for the Sweets to enter their property. A. Trial Proceedings ¶6 The Sweets sued the Dodsons, asserting claims for implied easement, interference with easement, boundary establishment, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil theft. At bottom, the Sweets claimed ownership of the landscaped area on the Dodsons’ property and sought damages arising from the Dodsons’ contrary claim. The Sweets also recorded a lis pendens 2  against the Dodsons’ property, prompting a lender to cancel the Dodsons’ pending refinance application. The Dodsons responded with counterclaims for quiet title, injunctive relief, fraud, abuse of process, extreme and outrageous conduct, trespass, and nuisance. ¶7 The district court granted summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Dodsons on all of the Sweets’ claims except unjust