1

District Court, Boulder County, State of Colorado 1777 Sixth Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 441-3726

COURT USE ONLY

GOLDEN RUN ESTATES, et al. Plaintiffs vs. TOWN OF ERIE, Defendant

Attorney for Plaintiffs: Robert Bruce Attorney for Defendant: Andrew Nathan, Marni Nathan-Kloster

Case Number: 14CV31112 Division 5 Hon. Andrew Hartman Courtroom H

JURY TRIAL MINUTE ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court for a jury trial. On June 8-11, 2015 the following actions were taken in the above captioned case. The Clerk is directed to enter these proceedings in the register of actions: COURT REPORTER: Kirsten Thorngate APPEARANCES: Robert Bruce appears on behalf of Plaintiffs; Plaintiff Aaron Harber also appears. Carl Oldham appears as corporate representative of Plaintiff Golden Run Estates, LLC. Jay Nathan and Marni Nathan-Kloster appear on behalf of Defendant, Town of Erie. A.J. Krieger appears as a representative of the town. SWORN WITNESSES: Gary Behlen Corporal Haddox Aaron Harber A.J. Krieger Carl Oldham Martin Ostolthoff Wendy Palmer Jeff Rupert PLAINTIFFS ADMITTED EXHIBITS: 1-11, 13-83 DEFENDANTS ADMITTED EXHIBITS:

DATE FILED: June 12, 2015

2

A-Z, AA-ZZ, AAA-ZZZ Counsel are directed to e-file any exhibits offered or admitted into evidence during trial in accordance with Chief Justice Directive 11-01 and Local Administrative Order 11-102 for inclusion in the record. The Court will file all direct trial documents. MATTERS AT TRIAL: Matters During Trial Monday, June 8, 2015

1. Seventeen jurors were selected for general voir dire.

2. A jury of six and one alternate was selected and sworn.

3. Outside of the presence of the jury, the Court orders the sequestration of all witnesses. Defendant objects to Carl Oldham as corporate representative for Plaintiff Golden Run Estates. Plaintiffs assert that he is general manager, a member of the LLC, and corporate representative of Plaintiff Golden Run Estates, and is thus entitled to be present. Plaintiff Aaron Harbor and Carl Oldham as corporate representative for Plaintiff Golden Run Estates and A.J. Krieger, as representative of Defendant, Town of Erie, will be permitted remain in the courtroom.

4. Counsel makes opening statements.

5. Aaron Harber testifies.

Matters During Trial Tuesday, June 9, 2015

6. Outside of the presence of the jury, the Court hears argument on Plaintiffs claim for damages arising out of Defendants enforcement of municipal code. Defendant asks the Court to exclude any evidence relating to those alleged damages. Defendant argues that the evidence is irrelevant and was not properly plead in Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiffs argue that the claim was properly plead and that there is no prejudice or surprise relating to this claim.

7. The Court finds that, given the low standard necessary to satisfy notice pleading requirements, Plaintiffs did provide sufficient notice to Defendant on this issue. The Court also finds that this issue is part and parcel of Plaintiffs claims alleging bad faith. Therefore the Court finds that the evidence is relevant, and as to any prejudice, the Court believes that the evidence is equally prejudicial to both parties. The Court therefore will not exclude this evidence and Defendants motion in limine is denied. The jury may consider this evidence when determining whether to award Plaintiffs damages on the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing claim. Defendant may cross-examine on the existing Boulder County enforcement actions against the property prior to the Town of Erie taking action and can utilize those alleged violations to show the jury the complete picture and put the violations in context. The Court will take up the issue of a specific

3

damage instruction when it addresses the jury instructions with the parties later during trial.

8. The parties agree that cross-examination of Plaintiffs witnesses will also contain Defendants direct examination and waive any objection on the grounds of outside the scope.

9. Aaron Harber continues to testify.

10. A.J. Krieger testifies.

Matters During Trial Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11. A.J. Krieger continues to testify.

12. Gary Behlen testifies. Defendant offers Mr. Behlen as an expert in property

development infrastructure analysis, the feasibility of Plaintiffs plan as it currently exists, Plaintiffs compliance with the town of Eries codes, and Plaintiffs damages arising therefrom. Plaintiffs do not object and the Court so qualifies Mr. Behlen.

13. Martin Ostolthoff testifies. Defendant offers Mr. Ostolthoff as an expert in zoning, development, the Town of Eries development code, Plaintiffs compliance with that code and the towns ordinances, and Plaintiffs damages. Plaintiffs do not object and the Court so qualifies Mr. Ostolthoff.

14. Corporal Haddox testifies.

15. Jeff Rupert testifies.

16. Carl Oldham testifies.

17. Plaintiff rests.

18. After the jury has been dismissed for the day, Defendant makes a motion for a directed verdict on the following issues:

a. Plaintiffs claim for damages under contract law for money spent remedying code violations

i. Defendant argues that the town is entitled to enforce its laws, that Plaintiffs cannot obtain damages for the remediation of an admitted municipal code violation, that a governmental entity may not contract away its police powers, and that Plaintiffs claim is actually a claim for harassment or malicious prosecution, which arises in tort and therefore implicates governmental immunity. Plaintiff argues that the claim arises in contract and that evidence already

4

presented to the jury could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that Defendants selective enforcement of the municipal codes was punitive, retaliatory, and therefore in bad faith.

b. Plaintiffs claim for contract damages based on future losses

i. Defendant argues that the damages claimed are too speculative.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs evidence has not shown with any particularity how the damages were calculated and that therefore the Court should enter a directed verdict on the issue of damages. Plaintiffs argue that a reasonable jury could make a determination of damages from the evidence presented at this point.

c. Plaintiffs right to bring a breach of contract claim under section 4(A) of the

pre-annexation agreement.

i. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs breach of contract claim under section 4(A) of the Pre-Annexation Agreement must be resolved by the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, C.R.S. 3112116. Under that Act, any action to withdraw an annexation ordinance must be brought within 60 days of the ordinances effective date, after a complaint is filed within 10 days of the effective date. Defendant argues that the Act presents a jurisdictional bar to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim. Plaintiffs argue that they are aggrieved not in the annexation but in the frustration of the Pre-Annexation Agreements remedy of disconnection, and therefore their claims are not barred. Defendant further argues that section 15 of the Agreement states that the contract is controlled by Colorado law in interpretation, validity, performance, and enforcement, which grafts the Annexation Acts procedural limitations onto section 4(A), meaning Plaintiffs breach of contract claim is not properly before the Court.

19. The Court rules as follows:

a. The Court DENIES Defendants motion for directed verdict on Plaintiffs

damages. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find, if it finds a breach, that Plaintiffs suffered quantifiable and consequential damages. The Court makes this finding based on the testimony of Mr. Harber and the Pre-Annexation Agreements (exhibit 1) option purchase price of $72,500,000, and the later increased option price. That the Town of Eries representative testified that it never intended to purchase the property at that price is a question of credibility for the jury to decide. The Court further finds that Mr. Oldhams testimony was based on his personal knowledge and experience as the manager of Plaintiff Golden Run

5

Estates, and his observation of all proceedings regarding development of the land at issue.

b. The Court DENIES Defendants motion for directed verdict on Plaintiffs claims for damages arising out of the towns code enforcement actions. The Court finds that this action is plead in contract, rather than tort, so it is not subject to the Governmental Immunities Act. The Court finds, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, that a reasonable jury could find that the municipal code enforcement action was a violation of the towns duty of good faith and fair dealing.

c. The Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendants motion

for a directed verdict on Plaintiffs right to bring a breach of contract claim and seek contract damages under section 4(A) of the Pre-Annexation Agreement.

i. The Courts hands are tied on the issue of revoking the annexation

based on the Municipal Annexation Act because Plaintiffs did not timely lodge an objection and then file a petition with the district court; this Court therefore has no jurisdiction on the annexation revocation remedy requested by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had a remedy under the Act, which would have been to file a petition with the district court after objecting within 10 days to the annexation. Plaintiffs did not do so.

ii. However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have a remaining claim for monetary damages based on the alleged breach of contract apart from the remedy of revocation of annexation. The Act provides the sole procedure for objections to annexation, but does not affect enforcement of other contract rights. Town of Superior v. Midcities, 933 P.2d 596, 603 n. 10 (Colo. 1997); Geraines v. City of Greenwood Village, 583 F.Supp. 830, 838 (D.Colo. 1984).

iii. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs still have a possible remedy of

disconnection by judicial decree under C.R.S. 31-12-703.

iv. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs admit that the Municipal Annexation Act bars Plaintiffs third claim for relief, declaratory judgment. Accordingly judgment is entered for Defendant on that claim.

20. Off the record, the Court holds a jury instruction conference.

6

Matters During Trial Thursday, June 11, 2015 21. Outside of the presence of the jury, counsel puts the substance of the jury

instruction conference on the record. Defendant and Plaintiffs both tender proposed verdict forms. The Court finds that the jury has heard enough evidence to make a determination of damages, so does not find a need for special verdicts on specific damages as offered in Defendants verdict form. The Court will give the general verdict forms as presented by Plaintiffs to the jury. Counsel may make argument during closing arguments on the issue of damages and the jury will be guided by very detailed jury instructions on breach of contract and what constitutes damages.

22. Defendant tenders additional instructions to the Court. The parties argue and the Court rules as follows:

a. Defendant tenders an instruction on municipal code compliance. Plaintiffs oppose the instruction, arguing that it is misleading, based on the state of the evidence. The Court finds that the evidence shows the Town of Erie has discretion in code enforcement and that there is evidence that the jury could consider when determining whether the town acted in bad faith. Therefore the Court finds the instruction is not congruent with the evidence and could confuse jury. Accordingly the Court will not give the jury instruction.

b. Defendant tenders an instruction on the affirmative defense of estoppel. Plaintiff argues that estoppel is not an appropriate defense based on the state of the evidence thus far. The Court finds that there is not sufficient evidence for the jury to consider estoppel in this breach of contract case, based on the record. Also, Defendants argument is directly contradicted by 4(A) of the Pre-Annexation Agreement, which the Court finds to be unambiguous as to Plaintiffs significant discretion and no time limit to seek withdrawal of the petition for annexation. Also, the Court finds that the general provisions of section 15 do not controvert the specific provisions of 4(A) in the agreement. Therefore the Court will not give the jury instruction.

c. Defendant tenders an instruction on the statute of limitations for attacking

the annexation. Plaintiffs argue that the Court has ruled that what Defendant claims is a statute of limitation is actually a jurisdictional bar under the Municipal Annexation Act, removing revocation of the annexation as a remedy. The Court finds that the evidence does not support giving this instruction. The Court also found that the jurisdictional defect does not bar Plaintiffs from bringing breach of contract or breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing claims seeking monetary damages. The Court finds that the Municipal Annexation Act only bars the specific remedy of retroactively withdrawing the annexation petition, which

7

is governed by C.R.S. 31-12-116. Therefore the Court will not give the jury instruction.

d. Defendant tenders an instruction to the Court on the proper calculation of

damages. Defendant argues that future lost earnings damages must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and may not be proven on speculation, guesses, or the mere estimates of witnesses. Plaintiffs argue that the instruction will confuse the jury and is duplicative of other instructions. The Court finds that the information contained in this instruction is covered by other instructions that the jury will be given. The Court also finds the proffered language inaccurately suggests a clear and convincing standard, rather than a preponderance of the evidence standard. Therefore the Court will not give the jury instruction.

e. Defendant tenders an instruction on the state of annexation law in

Colorado. Defendant argues that unless the jury has a sufficient understanding of annexation law, Defendant cannot reasonably defend against Plaintiffs bad faith claim. Plaintiffs argue that the record is well developed on this topic and that the instruction would confuse the jury. The Court finds that Defendant has had the opportunity to elicit testimony about the reasons why the town acted in good faith and may make arguments to that effect in closing. The Court further finds that Defendants position that section 15 of the Pre-Annexation Agreement somehow was intended to trump section 4(A) is not a proper reading of the contract. Due to the structure of the contract and the sections verbiage, the Court finds that section 15 is boilerplate. If Defendants theory were accurate, the contract would have had to specifically state that Colorado law controls when any provision of the contract conflicts with Colorado law. Permitting this instruction would essentially revise the contract, which, barring mutual mistake, would be an inappropriate action for the Court to take at this time. Also, based on the evidence and Defendants theory, the jury could find that Defendant attempted to use section 15 as an ace up its sleeve to defeat section 4(A).This dovetails with Plaintiffs claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and might even have raised other causes of action. Therefore the Court will not give the jury instruction.

f. Defendants final two proposed instructions, that the Court will determine disconnection by decree and that Plaintiffs claim no breach of section 4(B) of the Pre-Annexation Agreement, are not opposed. Therefore the Court will tender those instructions to the jury.

23. Counsel is reminded to file disputed jury instructions electronically after a verdict

is entered to preserve all rights on appeal.

8

24. Plaintiffs inform the Court that they do not agree to allow the alternate juror to deliberate. The Court will dismiss one juror as an alternate at the appropriate time.

25. Wendy Palmer testifies.

26. Defendant rests.

27. Plaintiffs do not present rebuttal testimony.

28. At the close of evidence, and outside of the presence of the jury, Plaintiffs make a motion for a directed verdict on their claim for disconnection by judicial decree. Plaintiffs argue that the testimony has shown that all requirements of C.R.S. 31-12-703 have been met. Defendant opposes the motion. The Court will hear argument on this issue while the jury is in deliberations.

29. Defendant renews its motions for directed verdicts. Per prior rulings, the Court denies the motions.

30. The Court reads the jury instructions to the jury.

31. Counsel makes closing statements.

32. As is this Courts practice, the Court selects one name at random to determine which juror is the alternate. That juror is thanked for jury service and dismissed.

33. The jury begins deliberations at approximately 11:15 a.m.

34. While the jury deliberates, Plaintiff Harber makes argument on the motion for disconnection by judicial decree. Plaintiff argues that all six requirements of the statute have been met and that any improvements made by Defendant were incidental and general to the town. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not met requirement (f) of C.R.S. 31-12-703 and did not plead the issue appropriately in the complaint. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff has not met the threshold requirement of filing a petition for a review hearing on disconnection. Defendant further argues that disconnection is expressly prohibited if certain improvements have been made to the property, which Defendant argues is the case here.

35. First, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has properly requested disconnection by

decree in the Complaint and in these proceedings. Next, the Court finds that Plaintiff Harbers motion for disconnection by decree is properly before the Court. Regarding the hearing requirement of C.R.S. 31-12-704, the Court notes that on November 7, 2014, Plaintiff requested that a hearing be set and that Defendant objected to holding a hearing on November 18, 2014, asserting many objections, which included that Defendant needed time for discovery prior to the hearing. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on this issue,

9

which the Court denied, on the grounds that there were disputed factual issues to be determined at trial. The Court and parties then proceeded in what the Court views as a consolidation of the hearing under 704 and trial on the other three claims. Therefore the Court finds that the request for disconnection by decree is properly before the Court; the fact that a hearing did not occur within 60 days cannot now be asserted as a defense by the Town of Erie due to its prior objection to the hearing. Lastly, although Plaintiff did assert his right to the hearing, he sought disconnection by decree as an alternative claim for relief at trial. Procedurally, Town of Erie is thus estopped from asserting any failure to proceed to hearing results in denial of Plaintiffs request.

36. Next, the Court finds that Plaintiff Harber has met his burden of showing that

disconnection is proper under C.R.S. 31-12-703 under longstanding Colorado Supreme Court precedent on the issue. The Court further finds that Defendant has not met his burden of proof on the affirmative defense of special improvements under 704 based on binding case law that is squarely on point. Therefore the Court GRANTS the motion for disconnection by judicial decree and ORDERS that the property shall be disconnected from the Town of Erie by decree of this Court. Plaintiff shall draft a proposed order on the disconnection with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and file such order with the Court by Friday, June 19, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall confer with Defendant before filing the proposed order. This Order is effective on this date, June 11, 2015.

37. The jury reaches a verdict at approximately 1:00 p.m. VERDICT: After deliberating for approximately 2 hours, the jury returns the following verdict, which is accepted and entered: The jury completed Special Verdict Form A and found for Plaintiffs. The jury awarded Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $305,000.00. The jury did not answer Special Verdict Form B (judgment for Defendant).

The jury answered Special Verdict Form C and found for Plaintiffs. The jury awarded Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $57,500.00. The jury did not answer Special Verdict Form D (judgment for Defendant). NOW THEREFORE, JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON CLAIMS 1 and 2 IS HEREBY ENTERED PURSUANT TO VERDICT BY THE JURY. JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT IS ENTERED ON CLAIM 3 BY THE COURT. JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF HARBER IS ENTERED ON CLAIM 4 BY THE COURT.

10

JUROR QUESTIONS DURING TRIAL

Juror questions 1- 3 were tendered to the Court; the Court presented the questions to Aaron Harber.

Juror questions 4 - 6 were tendered to the Court; the Court presented the questions to A.J. Krieger.

Juror questions 7 and 8 were tendered to the Court; the Court presented the questions to Wendy Palmer.

JUROR QUESTIONS DURING DELIBERATIONS

The jury asked one question during deliberations. The parties stipulated to an answer and the Court answered as stipulated.

Judgment is entered as set forth in this Order and Jury Verdict Forms A and C. Done this 12th day of June, 2015, nunc pro tunc June 11, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

Andrew Hartman District Court Judge

A-Z, AA-ZZ, AAA-ZZZCounsel are directed to e-file any exhibits offered or admitted into evidence during trial in accordance with Chief Justice Directive 11-01 and Local Administrative Order 11-102 for inclusion in the record. The Court will file all direct trial documen...MATTERS AT TRIAL:Matters During Trial Monday, June 8, 20151. Seventeen jurors were selected for general voir dire.2. A jury of six and one alternate was selected and sworn.3. Outside of the presence of the jury, the Court orders the sequestration of all witnesses. Defendant objects to Carl Oldham as corporate representative for Plaintiff Golden Run Estates. Plaintiffs assert that he is general manager, a member of the L...4. Counsel makes opening statements.5. Aaron Harber testifies.Matters During Trial Tuesday, June 9, 20156. Outside of the presence of the jury, the Court hears argument on Plaintiffs claim for damages arising out of Defendants enforcement of municipal code. Defendant asks the Court to exclude any evidence relating to those alleged damages. Defendant a...7. The Court finds that, given the low standard necessary to satisfy notice pleading requirements, Plaintiffs did provide sufficient notice to Defendant on this issue. The Court also finds that this issue is part and parcel of Plaintiffs claims alleg...8. The parties agree that cross-examination of Plaintiffs witnesses will also contain Defendants direct examination and waive any objection on the grounds of outside the scope.9. Aaron Harber continues to testify.10. A.J. Krieger testifies.Matters During Trial Wednesday, June 10, 201511. A.J. Krieger continues to testify.12. Gary Behlen testifies. Defendant offers Mr. Behlen as an expert in property development infrastructure analysis, the feasibility of Plaintiffs plan as it currently exists, Plaintiffs compliance with the town of Eries codes, and Plaintiffs damag...13. Martin Ostolthoff testifies. Defendant offers Mr. Ostolthoff as an expert in zoning, development, the Town of Eries development code, Plaintiffs compliance with that code and the towns ordinances, and Plaintiffs damages. Plaintiffs do not obje...14. Corporal Haddox testifies.15. Jeff Rupert testifies.16. Carl Oldham testifies.17. Plaintiff rests.18. After the jury has been dismissed for the day, Defendant makes a motion for a directed verdict on the following issues:a. Plaintiffs claim for damages under contract law for money spent remedying code violationsi. Defendant argues that the town is entitled to enforce its laws, that Plaintiffs cannot obtain damages for the remediation of an admitted municipal code violation, that a governmental entity may not contract away its police powers, and that Plaintif...b. Plaintiffs claim for contract damages based on future lossesi. Defendant argues that the damages claimed are too speculative. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs evidence has not shown with any particularity how the damages were calculated and that therefore the Court should enter a directed verdict on the issue...c. Plaintiffs right to bring a breach of contract claim under section 4(A) of the pre-annexation agreement.i. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs breach of contract claim under section 4(A) of the Pre-Annexation Agreement must be resolved by the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act, C.R.S. 3112116. Under that Act, any action to withdraw an annexation ordina...19. The Court rules as follows:a. The Court DENIES Defendants motion for directed verdict on Plaintiffs damages. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could find, if it finds a breach, that Plaintiffs suff...b. The Court DENIES Defendants motion for directed verdict on Plaintiffs claims for damages arising out of the towns code enforcement actions. The Court finds that this action is plead in contract, rather than tort, so it is not subject to the Gove...c. The Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendants motion for a directed verdict on Plaintiffs right to bring a breach of contract claim and seek contract damages under section 4(A) of the Pre-Annexation Agreement.i. The Courts hands are tied on the issue of revoking the annexation based on the Municipal Annexation Act because Plaintiffs did not timely lodge an objection and then file a petition with the district court; this Court therefore has no jurisdiction...ii. However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have a remaining claim for monetary damages based on the alleged breach of contract apart from the remedy of revocation of annexation. The Act provides the sole procedure for objections to annexation, but d...iii. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs still have a possible remedy of disconnection by judicial decree under C.R.S. 31-12-703.iv. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs admit that the Municipal Annexation Act bars Plaintiffs third claim for relief, declaratory judgment. Accordingly judgment is entered for Defendant on that claim.20. Off the record, the Court holds a jury instruction conference.Matters During Trial Thursday, June 11, 201521. Outside of the presence of the jury, counsel puts the substance of the jury instruction conference on the record. Defendant and Plaintiffs both tender proposed verdict forms. The Court finds that the jury has heard enough evidence to make a determ...22. Defendant tenders additional instructions to the Court. The parties argue and the Court rules as follows:a. Defendant tenders an instruction on municipal code compliance. Plaintiffs oppose the instruction, arguing that it is misleading, based on the state of the evidence. The Court finds that the evidence shows the Town of Erie has discretion in code en...b. Defendant tenders an instruction on the affirmative defense of estoppel. Plaintiff argues that estoppel is not an appropriate defense based on the state of the evidence thus far. The Court finds that there is not sufficient evidence for the jury to...c. Defendant tenders an instruction on the statute of limitations for attacking the annexation. Plaintiffs argue that the Court has ruled that what Defendant claims is a statute of limitation is actually a jurisdictional bar under the Municipal Annexa...d. Defendant tenders an instruction to the Court on the proper calculation of damages. Defendant argues that future lost earnings damages must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and may not be proven on speculation, guesses, or the mere esti...e. Defendant tenders an instruction on the state of annexation law in Colorado. Defendant argues that unless the jury has a sufficient understanding of annexation law, Defendant cannot reasonably defend against Plaintiffs bad faith claim. Plaintiffs ...f. Defendants final two proposed instructions, that the Court will determine disconnection by decree and that Plaintiffs claim no breach of section 4(B) of the Pre-Annexation Agreement, are not opposed. Therefore the Court will tender those instructi...23. Counsel is reminded to file disputed jury instructions electronically after a verdict is entered to preserve all rights on appeal.24. Plaintiffs inform the Court that they do not agree to allow the alternate juror to deliberate. The Court will dismiss one juror as an alternate at the appropriate time.25. Wendy Palmer testifies.26. Defendant rests.27. Plaintiffs do not present rebuttal testimony.28. At the close of evidence, and outside of the presence of the jury, Plaintiffs make a motion for a directed verdict on their claim for disconnection by judicial decree. Plaintiffs argue that the testimony has shown that all requirements of C.R.S. ...29. Defendant renews its motions for directed verdicts. Per prior rulings, the Court denies the motions.30. The Court reads the jury instructions to the jury.31. Counsel makes closing statements.32. As is this Courts practice, the Court selects one name at random to determine which juror is the alternate. That juror is thanked for jury service and dismissed.33. The jury begins deliberations at approximately 11:15 a.m.34. While the jury deliberates, Plaintiff Harber makes argument on the motion for disconnection by judicial decree. Plaintiff argues that all six requirements of the statute have been met and that any improvements made by Defendant were incidental and...35. First, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has properly requested disconnection by decree in the Complaint and in these proceedings. Next, the Court finds that Plaintiff Harbers motion for disconnection by decree is properly before the Court. Rega...36. Next, the Court finds that Plaintiff Harber has met his burden of showing that disconnection is proper under C.R.S. 31-12-703 under longstanding Colorado Supreme Court precedent on the issue. The Court further finds that Defendant has not met hi...37. The jury reaches a verdict at approximately 1:00 p.m.VERDICT:After deliberating for approximately 2 hours, the jury returns the following verdict, which is accepted and entered:The jury completed Special Verdict Form A and found for Plaintiffs. The jury awarded Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $305,000.00. The jury did not answer Special Verdict Form B (judgment for Defendant).The jury answered Special Verdict Form C and found for Plaintiffs. The jury awarded Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $57,500.00. The jury did not answer Special Verdict Form D (judgment for Defendant).NOW THEREFORE, JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON CLAIMS 1 and 2 IS HEREBY ENTERED PURSUANT TO VERDICT BY THE JURY.JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT IS ENTERED ON CLAIM 3 BY THE COURT.JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF HARBER IS ENTERED ON CLAIM 4 BY THE COURT.JUROR QUESTIONS DURING TRIAL Juror questions 1- 3 were tendered to the Court; the Court presented the questions to Aaron Harber. Juror questions 4 - 6 were tendered to the Court; the Court presented the questions to A.J. Krieger. Juror questions 7 and 8 were tendered to the Court; the Court presented the questions to Wendy Palmer.JUROR QUESTIONS DURING DELIBERATIONS The jury asked one question during deliberations. The parties stipulated to an answer and the Court answered as stipulated.Judgment is entered as set forth in this Order and Jury Verdict Forms A and C.Done this 12PthP day of June, 2015, nunc pro tunc June 11, 2015.