Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Burcher v. Quincy Hill, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gregory Burcher against his homeowners' association and one of its representatives. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners' association and dismissed one of the defendants. It also assessed $54,066.71 in attorney's fees against Burcher. The Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's rulings, finding Burcher's claims of error unpersuasive.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Burcher v. Quincy Hill, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    34 views3 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gregory Burcher against his homeowners' association and one of its representatives. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners' association and dismissed one of the defendants. It also assessed $54,066.71 in attorney's fees against Burcher. The Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's rulings, finding Burcher's claims of error unpersuasive.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-1092

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gregory Burcher against his homeowners' association and one of its representatives. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners' association and dismissed one of the defendants. It also assessed $54,066.71 in attorney's fees against Burcher. The Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's rulings, finding Burcher's claims of error unpersuasive.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    34 views3 pages

    Burcher v. Quincy Hill, 10th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gregory Burcher against his homeowners' association and one of its representatives. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners' association and dismissed one of the defendants. It also assessed $54,066.71 in attorney's fees against Burcher. The Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's rulings, finding Burcher's claims of error unpersuasive.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2001


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    GREGORY BURCHER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    QUINCY HILL TOWNHOUSE
    ASSOCIATION and JUDY LOTT,

    Nos. 00-1092 & 00-1424


    (D.C. No. 98-WM-672)
    (D. Colo.)

    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before EBEL , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    Plaintiff Gregory Burcher brought suit against his homeowners association


    and one of its representatives, asserting violations of his constitutional rights,
    federal law, and state tort law. Some of plaintiffs claims were settled or
    withdrawn. On the remainder, the district court granted summary judgment in
    favor of defendant Quincy Hill Townhouse Association and granted defendant
    Judy Lotts motion to dismiss. The court also assessed attorneys fees in the
    amount of $54,066.71 against plaintiff. He appeals. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. 1291.
    The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not repeat them here.
    We review the district courts grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
    same legal standard used by the district court.
    Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs.

    Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dept of

    , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999).

    Summary judgment is proper if the moving party shows that there is no genuine
    issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as
    a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When applying this standard, we view
    the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable
    to the nonmoving party.

    Simms , 165 F.3d at 1326.

    Because the legal sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law, we also


    review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state
    a claim. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind
    -2-

    , 173 F.3d 1226, 1236

    (10th Cir. 1999). A court considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion accepts all
    well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, viewing them in the light most
    favorable to the nonmoving party.

    Id. A 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted

    unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
    Id. (quotation omitted).

    support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.

    Plaintiff argues that: (1) a homeowners association is the functional


    equivalent of a municipality with general governmental powers over its members
    such as to act under color of law; (2) the district court improperly assessed
    attorneys fees against him; (3) Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-17-201 cannot be applied
    to this case and does not support an award of attorneys fees against him;
    (4) the district courts order is inadequate to establish the reasonableness of
    attorneys fees.
    We have carefully reviewed the district courts decisions under the
    applicable standards in light of the parties materials and the record on appeal.
    We are unpersuaded by plaintiffs claims of error, and affirm for substantially
    the same reasons as those set forth by the district court.
    AFFIRMED.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -3-

    You might also like