COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA143 

Court of Appeals No. 15CA0206 

City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV32364 

Honorable Robert L. McGahey, Judge 

R. Parker Semler, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

Bruce S. Hellerstein; Perfect Place, LLC; Bruce S. Hellerstein, CPA P.C.; Charles 

Bewley; and Berenbaum Weinshienk, P.C., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDERS AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, 

AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS 

Division II 

Opinion by JUDGE ASHBY 

Webb and Plank*, JJ., concur 

Prior Opinion Announced August 4, 2016, WITHDRAWN 

Perfect Place Defendants’ Petition for Rehearing GRANTED 

All Other Petitions for Rehearing DENIED 

Announced October 6, 2016 

Semler and Associates, P.C., R. Parker Semler, Jeremy Goldblatt, Matthew 

Nelson, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant 

Podoll & Podoll, P.C., Robert Kitsmiller, Robert Podoll, Richard Podoll, 

Greenwood Village, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees Bruce S. Hellerstein; 

Perfect Place, LLC; Bruce S. Hellerstein, CPA P.C. 

Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP, Carolyn J. Fairless, Kendra N. Beckwith, Denver, 

Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees Charles Bewley; and Berenbaum 

Weinshienk, P.C. 
*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. 

VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2016. 
1

¶ 1 Plaintiff, R. Parker Semler, appeals from the trial court’s order 

granting defendants’, Bruce S. Hellerstein; Perfect Place, LLC; Bruce 

S. Hellerstein, CPA P.C.; Charles Bewley; and Berenbaum 

Weinshienk, P.C., motions to dismiss and denying Semler’s motion 

to amend his complaint. Semler also appeals from the trial court’s 

denial of his motion for postjudgment relief and its award of 

attorney fees and costs in defendants’ favor. We affirm in part, 

reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings. 

I. Background 

¶ 2 Semler and Perfect Place are both members of the 1940 Blake 

Street Condominium Association (Association). Hellerstein owns 

and controls both Perfect Place and Bruce S. Hellerstein, CPA P.C. 

Hellerstein also served as treasurer of the Association when he 

allegedly committed the conduct discussed below. Bewley is an 

attorney employed by the law firm of Berenbaum Weinshienk, PC. 

At all relevant times, Bewley represented Hellerstein and his two 

corporate entities. 

¶ 3 In a related quiet title action, Perfect Place asked the court to 

determine that it was the rightful owner of parking spaces C, D, and 

E. According to Semler, he had acquired title to parking space C 
2

over seven years ago. He also acquired title to parking space D 

through a deed of trust and significant consideration. Perfect Place 

asserted that it had acquired title to all three parking spaces via 

quitclaim deed from John Watson and two entities that Watson 

controlled in June 2011. The court presiding over the quiet title 

action determined that Semler owned spaces C and D, while Perfect 

Place owned parking space E. 

¶ 4 Perfect Place appealed and that appeal is currently pending 

before another division of this court. 

¶ 5 In a separate action, Semler filed a complaint, which was later 

amended, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against Hellerstein, 

aiding and abetting that breach against Bewley, and civil conspiracy 

against all defendants. Defendants filed two motions to dismiss, 

one based on C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) and one based on lack of standing. 

Soon thereafter, Semler moved to amend his complaint a second 

time, adding claims for fraud, nondisclosure and concealment, 

negligent misrepresentation, negligent supervision, vicarious 

liability, and breach of contract. He also more clearly explained 

that he was seeking damages for the lost income opportunities he 
3

suffered as a result of having to defend against the quiet title 

action.1

¶ 6 The court granted the motions to dismiss and denied Semler’s 

second motion to amend. The court also awarded attorney fees in 

favor of defendants. 

II. Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal 

¶ 7 Defendants assert that Semler’s notice of appeal was untimely 

and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. We 

disagree. 

¶ 8 “The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional 

prerequisite to appellate review.” Estep v. People, 753 P.2d 1241, 

1246 (Colo. 1988). Under C.A.R. 4(a), the notice of appeal must be 

filed “within 49 days of the date of the entry of the judgment, 

decree, or order from which the party appeals.” 

¶ 9 As relevant here, one method by which to calculate the fortynine-day period is from the date the court grants or denies a Rule 

 

1 In his reply brief on appeal, Semler, for the first time, asserted 

damages based on his loss of use of the parking spaces and his 

inability to alienate them while the quiet title action is still pending. 

We decline to address these arguments as they were never 

presented to the trial court and have not been properly raised. 
4

59 motion. C.A.R. 4(a). Thus, “[t]he timely filing of a motion 

pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59 tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal.” 

Goodwin v. Homeland Cent. Ins. Co., 172 P.3d 938, 944 (Colo. App. 

2007), as modified on denial of reh’g (Oct. 25, 2007). 

¶ 10 Nevertheless, defendants argue that because there was no trial 

and Semler made the same arguments in his postjudgment motion 

as he had in earlier pleadings, Semler’s motion did not qualify as a 

C.R.C.P. 59 motion. They further argue that because Semler asked 

the court to vacate its orders of dismissal, the postjudgment motion 

could only be construed as a motion to vacate the judgment under 

C.R.C.P. 60. And, because a postjudgment motion pursuant to 

C.R.C.P. 60 does not toll the time within which to file a notice of 

appeal, Semler’s appeal is untimely. 

¶ 11 We find the out-of-state cases cited by defendants 

distinguishable,2 follow those prior Colorado cases that construe 

motions such as Semler’s — filed in cases that ended before a trial 

— as motions under C.R.C.P. 59, and conclude that this appeal is 

 

2 See Hyde v. Anania, 578 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 1998); Brown v. 

Brown, No. 659, 1988 WL 36360, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 29, 

1988); Johnson v. Johnson, 515 A.2d 960, 962 (Pa. Super. Ct. 

1986). 
5

timely. See SMLL, L.L.C. v. Daly, 128 P.3d 266, 269 (Colo. App. 

2005); Small v. Gen. Motors Corp., 694 P.2d 374,375 (Colo. App. 

1984). 

¶ 12 Here, the day after the court entered its order dismissing 

Semler’s claims, Semler filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant 

to C.R.C.P. 59. The court denied the motion about one month later 

on December 22, 2014. Exactly forty-nine days later, on February 

9, 2015, Semler filed his notice of appeal. Therefore, we conclude 

the appeal was timely filed and that we do have jurisdiction to 

consider the appeal. 

III. Motion to Amend Complaint 

¶ 13 Semler contends that the trial court erred by denying his 

motion for leave to amend his complaint. 

¶ 14 We generally review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a 

motion to amend for an abuse of discretion. See Benton v. Adams, 

56 P.3d 81, 85 (Colo. 2002). However, “[w]hen a trial court denies 

leave to amend on grounds that the amendment would be futile 

because it cannot survive a motion to dismiss, we review that 

question de novo as a matter of law.” Id.
6

¶ 15 Our courts favor a liberal policy toward amending pleadings. 

Under C.R.C.P. 15(a), “where leave of court is required to amend a 

pleading, ‘leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” Civil 

Serv. Comm’n v. Carney, 97 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo. 2004) (quoting 

C.R.C.P. 15(a)). In determining whether to grant leave, the court 

should consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. Some 

grounds for denying a motion to amend include “undue delay, bad 

faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies in the 

pleadings via prior amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing 

party, and futility of amendment.” Benton, 56 P.3d at 86. 

¶ 16 Here, in its omnibus order dismissing the case, the trial court 

denied Semler’s motion to amend his complaint (for the second 

time) but stated no basis for doing so other than articulating why 

Semler had no standing to pursue any alleged fraud against or 

misrepresentation to Mr. Watson, the prior owner of the parking 

spaces. And the court’s dismissal of the action was specifically 

premised on Semler’s fraud claims. These claims were not included 

in Semler’s initial or amended complaint and were new to the 

second amended complaint. Therefore, it appears to us that even 

though the court denied Semler’s motion to amend, it did in fact 
7

consider the second amended complaint when ruling on the motion 

to dismiss. Defendants acknowledge this in their answer brief. 

¶ 17 We presume, therefore, that the court’s denial of Semler’s 

motion to amend was premised on its dismissal of the entire action 

and the futility of further proceedings. Thus, we will review the trial 

court’s dismissal of the action based on Semler’s second amended 

complaint. 

IV. Standing 

¶ 18 The trial court’s order dismissing the action stated: 

[Semler] is not the victim of the alleged fraud 

that he claims occurred. . . . [Semler] fails to 

offer any evidence to support this claim of 

misrepresentation, instead offering conclusory 

statements in his Complaint. If Mr. Watson is 

the victim of fraud, then it is he who should 

sue the Association and/or the individuals for 

their role in the alleged misrepresentation. 

Due to lack of standing, the other legal issues 

addressed in Defendants’ Motions are moot. 

¶ 19 We review the trial court’s decision regarding whether a 

plaintiff has standing de novo. Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238, 245 

(Colo. 2008). To establish standing, the court must find that the 

plaintiff has suffered (1) an injury in fact (2) to a legally protected 

interest. Id. at 245-46. Both prongs must be met. A plaintiff lacks 
8

standing to sue for injuries allegedly suffered by someone else. See 

Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 168-69, 570 P.2d 535, 539 

(1977); see also Greenwood Vill. v. Petitioners for Proposed City of 

Centennial, 3 P.3d 427, 439 (Colo. 2000) (“The third-party standing 

rule prevents a party from asserting the claims of third parties who 

are not involved in the lawsuit.”). 

¶ 20 Here the fraud, concealment, and misrepresentation claims 

are all premised on conversations and transactions between Mr. 

Watson and defendants. Semler was not involved. He asserts, 

however, that the fraudulent conduct was intended to cause 

damage to him; that is, to improperly acquire title to his parking 

spaces thereby depriving him of their use. Even if we assume that 

Semler is correct and that he has standing to assert these fraudbased claims even though he was not the first-party victim of the 

fraud, we nonetheless affirm the trial court’s dismissal of those 

claims. See Rush Creek Sols., Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 

P.3d 402, 406 (Colo. App. 2004) (we may affirm the trial court’s 

ruling on any grounds supported by the record). 

¶ 21 Semler alleges that he suffered lost income opportunity 

damages as a result of defendants’ fraudulent conduct because he 
9

was forced to litigate his right to the parking spaces and was unable 

to accept additional clients during that time. To recover damages 

for fraudulent conduct, the damages must be a reasonably 

foreseeable consequence of the fraud. See Restatement (Second) of 

Torts §§ 435A, 548A (Am. Law Inst. 1965); see also Bridge v. Phx. 

Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 656-57 (2008). We conclude that 

Semler’s claims for lost opportunity damages are too remote and 

unforeseeable to be recoverable. See id. at 658; Roberts v. Holland 

& Hart, 857 P.2d 492, 496-98 (Colo. App. 1993). 

¶ 22 Accordingly, we conclude that these claims failed to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted and should have been 

dismissed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). The trial court’s dismissal order, 

however, fails to address Semler’s remaining, non-fraud-based 

claims. Thus, we address them each in turn. 

V. C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) 

¶ 23 Because Semler’s remaining claims assert conduct against 

him directly, the trial court’s reasoning for dismissal based on lack 

of standing does not apply. And because we may affirm the trial 

court’s order on any basis supported by the record, we analyze 

Semler’s remaining claims under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). See Rector v. 
10

City & Cty. of Denver, 122 P.3d 1010, 1013 (Colo. App. 2005) 

(“When a trial court does not engage in the proper C.R.C.P. 12(b) 

analysis, a reviewing court need not remand if it can resolve the 

issue as a matter of law.”). 

¶ 24 Under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), a party may move to dismiss the other 

party’s claims for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.” The supreme court recently acknowledged a shift in how 

Colorado courts should assess C.R.C.P. 12(b) motions to dismiss, so 

that Colorado law is more closely aligned with the federal 

standards. Warne v. Hall, 2016 CO 50, ¶ 29 (“Although our opinion 

today does not result in an amendment to the language of our rules 

of procedure, it clearly signals a shift in the considerations 

according to which a motion to dismiss is to be evaluated and, 

therefore, a change in the terms in which a complaint may have to 

be expressed to avoid dismissal.”). Under this standard, “only a 

complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion 

to dismiss.” Id. at ¶ 9 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 

(2009)). 

¶ 25 In contrast, under the old standard, a plaintiff failed to state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted when “it appears beyond a 
11

doubt that a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her 

claim which would entitle her to relief.” Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. 

Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377, 385-86 (Colo. 2001). See also Dotson v. 

Bernstein, 207 P.3d 911, 912 (Colo. App. 2009) (“A complaint may 

not be dismissed for failure to state a claim so long as the pleader is 

entitled to some relief upon any theory of law.”). 

¶ 26 Warne suggests that the new standard applies retroactively, 

and despite having been ordered to address this issue at oral 

argument, neither party argued to the contrary. However, even 

under the prior and more lenient “no set of facts” standard, we 

conclude that Semler has failed to state a claim for all but one of 

his claims, as discussed below.3 Regardless, in reviewing Semler’s 

claims under Rule 12(b)(5), we view all allegations in the complaint 

as true and in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See 

Bly v. Story, 241 P.3d 529, 533 (Colo. 2010). 

 

3 Because we do not apply the Warne standard, we reject Semler’s 

request to remand and allow him to amend yet again in an effort to 

satisfy the new standard. 
12

A. Civil Conspiracy 

¶ 27 Semler contends that defendants conspired with each other to 

obtain his parking spaces. We find as a matter of law that Semler 

is not entitled to relief on a civil conspiracy claim. 

¶ 28 Conspiracy requires “(1) two or more persons, and for this 

purpose a corporation is a person; (2) an object to be accomplished; 

(3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one 

or more unlawful overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate 

result thereof.” Walker v. Van Laningham, 148 P.3d 391, 396 (Colo. 

App. 2006) (quoting Jet Courier Serv., Inc. v. Mulei, 771 P.2d 486, 

502 (Colo. 1989)). 

¶ 29 It is a well-settled tenet of corporate law that a director cannot 

conspire with the corporation which he serves. See, e.g., Pittman v. 

Larson Distrib. Co., 724 P.2d 1379, 1390 (Colo. App. 1986) (“A 

corporation and its employees do not constitute the ‘two or more 

persons’ required for a civil conspiracy, at least if the employees are 

acting on behalf of the corporation and not as individuals for their 

individual advantage.”) (citations omitted). However, Semler 

claimed that “at all times relevant to the allegations” in his 

complaint, Bewley was the legal representative for and an agent of 
13

Perfect Place and Hellerstein.4 And whether an attorney who is 

acting within the scope of his representation may conspire with his 

client is an issue of first impression in Colorado. 

¶ 30 Other courts that have addressed the issue generally hold that 

an attorney acting within the scope of his employment cannot 

conspire with his client unless the attorney has also acted for his 

sole personal benefit. See, e.g., Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 

1231 (11th Cir. 2003); Heffernan v. Hunter, 189 F.3d 405, 412-13 

(3d Cir. 1999). This limitation reflects that “[t]he right of a litigant 

to independent and zealous counsel is at the heart of our adversary 

system and, indeed, invokes constitutional concerns.” Heffernan, 

189 F.3d at 413. Further, “[c]ounsels’ conduct within the scope of 

representation is regulated and enforced by disciplinary bodies 

established by the courts. Abuses in litigation are punishable by 

sanctions administered by the courts in which the litigation 

occurs.” Id.

 

4 The CPA firm, for which Hellerstein was the principal, was also 

referenced in the complaint as one of the “Perfect Place defendants” 

who Semler claimed conspired to obtain ownership of the parking 

spaces. All of these defendants were allegedly represented by 

Bewley. 
14

¶ 31 Even so, other courts have recognized additional bases for a 

viable conspiracy claim, such as when the attorney engages in 

fraud. See Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 871 (8th 

Cir. 2002); Marshall v. Fenstermacher, 388 F. Supp. 2d 536, 553 

(E.D. Pa. 2005); see also Astarte, Inc. v. Pac. Indus. Sys., Inc., 865 F. 

Supp. 693, 708 (D. Colo. 1994); Moore v. Weinberg, 644 S.E.2d 740, 

750 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007) (“[A]n attorney may be held liable for 

conspiracy where, in addition to representing his client, he 

breaches some independent duty to a third person.”) (citation 

omitted), aff’d, 681 S.E.2d 875 (2009). 

¶ 32 Here however, as stated in supra Part IV, Semler has neither 

pleaded facts to support a fraud claim nor has he alleged that 

Bewley acted for his own personal gain or otherwise acted outside 

the scope of his legal representation. See Doherty v. Am. Motors 

Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 339–40 (6th Cir. 1984) (concluding that the 

plaintiff did not present any evidence proving the existence of a 

conspiracy between the defendant and the defendant’s attorneys 

because the attorneys “were motivated not by personal concerns 

but by concerns for their clients”). To the contrary, Semler asserted 

that “at all times relevant” to the claims, Bewley was acting within 
15

the scope of his representation of the Perfect Place defendants and 

his employment as an employee for defendant law firm Berenbaum 

Weinshienk. Thus, we defer deciding exactly what must be alleged 

to plead a viable claim against a lawyer for allegedly conspiring with 

the lawyer’s client. See Alexander v. Anstine, 152 P.3d 497, 499 

(Colo. 2007) (“Because Anstine lacked standing to bring the aiding 

and abetting claim against the attorney defendants, we do not reach 

the second issue regarding whether an attorney can be held liable 

for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty to a non-client, 

. . . thereby leaving this issue for another day.”). 

¶ 33 Therefore, we conclude that this allegation fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed. 

B. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

¶ 34 Semler contends that Hellerstein, as treasurer of the 

Association, breached his fiduciary duty to Semler, a member of the 

Association, by engaging in self-serving and fraudulent conduct. 

We disagree. 

¶ 35 Generally, determining the existence of a fiduciary duty is a 

question of fact; however, certain relationships may give rise to a 

fiduciary duty as a matter of law. Mintz v. Accident & Injury Med. 
16

Specialists, PC, 284 P.3d 62, 68 (Colo. App. 2010), as modified on 

denial of reh’g (Feb. 24, 2011), aff’d, 2012 CO 50. Thus, we review 

such determinations de novo. Id.; see Command Commc’ns, Inc. v. 

Fritz Cos., Inc., 36 P.3d 182, 186 (Colo. App. 2001) (“The court 

determines as a matter of law the nature and scope of the duty 

owed by a fiduciary.”). 

¶ 36 “[A] fiduciary relationship exists between two persons when 

one of them has undertaken a duty to act for or to give advice for 

the benefit of another on matters within the relationship’s scope.” 

Mintz, 284 P.3d at 68. Thus, generally, a homeowners’ association 

owes a fiduciary duty to its members. McShane v. Stirling Ranch 

Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 2015 COA 48, ¶ 30 (cert. granted Jan. 11, 

2016). And, “[u]nder section 38–33.3–303(2)(a), [C.R.S. 2015,] ‘[i]f 

appointed by the declarant, in the performance of their duties, the 

officers and members of the executive board are required to exercise 

the care required of fiduciaries of the unit owners.’” Id. (quoting 

§ 38-33.3-303(2)(a)). Accordingly, much like officers of a 

corporation, the board members of a homeowners association owe a 

fiduciary duty to both the association and its members. See 

Michaelson v. Michaelson, 939 P.2d 835, 841-42 (Colo. 1997); Van 
17

Schaack Holdings, Ltd. v. Van Schaack, 867 P.2d 892, 897 (Colo. 

1994). 

¶ 37 This duty, however, is not all encompassing. When acting on 

behalf of the association or in their official capacity as board 

members, or when engaging in transactions involving the 

association but in their individual capacities, that fiduciary duty 

exists and the board members are bound by it. But, when engaged 

in transactions with other association members or with members of 

the public at large, where those transactions are not conducted on 

behalf of the association and do not involve the association, there 

exists no fiduciary duty. See Mintz, 284 P.3d at 68-69 (“[W]here the 

parties are engaged in an arm’s-length business transaction 

without any special relationship of trust and confidence and 

without one party assuming a duty to act in the other party’s best 

interest, a fiduciary duty does not exist.”). 

¶ 38 Here, Hellerstein was not acting in his role as treasurer when 

he engaged in the allegedly fraudulent conduct. And the 

Association was not involved in or affected by these transactions 

with Watson or Semler. Rather, these transactions involved 

individuals, acting in their individual capacities, unrelated to the 
18

interests of the Association. We are not persuaded that Hellerstein 

was bound by his fiduciary duties when acting wholly outside the 

scope of his board position. 

¶ 39 Therefore, under the circumstances here, Hellerstein did not 

owe a fiduciary duty to Semler. Accordingly, we conclude that 

Semler has failed to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. 

C. Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

¶ 40 Semler contends that Bewley aided and abetted Hellerstein in 

breaching his fiduciary duty. We disagree. 

¶ 41 Because we have concluded that Hellerstein did not owe 

Semler a fiduciary duty under these circumstances, Bewley could 

not, as a matter of law, have aided and abetted him in breaching it. 

Therefore, we conclude that Semler has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. 

D. Negligent Supervision 

¶ 42 Semler contends that Bewley’s law firm, Berenbaum 

Winshienk, negligently supervised Bewley, which caused Semler to 

have to litigate his rights to the parking spaces in the quiet title 

action. We disagree. 
19

¶ 43 An employer may be directly liable for its negligent supervision 

of an employee where “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal 

duty to supervise others; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and 

(3) the breach of the duty caused the harm that resulted in 

damages to the plaintiff.” Settle v. Basinger, 2013 COA 18, ¶ 23. 

To determine whether the employer owed a duty to a particular 

plaintiff, we consider “the risk involved, the foreseeability and 

likelihood of injury as weighed against the social utility of the 

actor's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against 

injury or harm, and the consequences of placing the burden upon 

the actor.” Id. at ¶ 25. 

¶ 44 The duty only arises where the employer has reason to know 

that the employee is likely to harm others “because of ‘his [or her] 

qualities’ and ‘the work or instrumentalities entrusted to him [or 

her].’” Id. at ¶ 26 (quoting Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275, 287 

(Colo. 1988)) (emphasis omitted); see Keller v. Koca, 111 P.3d 445, 

450 (Colo. 2005), as modified on denial of reh’g May 16, 2005 (“[I]n 

order for a duty of care to exist, there must be a connection 

between the employer’s knowledge of the employee’s dangerous 

propensities and the harm caused.”). The connection between the 
20

employer’s knowledge and the employee’s dangerous propensities is 

crucial to establishing a duty. Keller, 111 P.3d at 450. 

¶ 45 For the reasons we have stated with respect to each claim, 

Semler has not alleged any tortious conduct by Bewley, let alone 

conduct about which his employer knew and negligently failed to 

prevent. Therefore, we conclude that Semler has failed to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. 

E. Vicarious Liability 

¶ 46 Semler also contends that Berenbaum Weinshienk is 

vicariously liable for the tortious acts of Bewley, who was, at all 

times, acting within the scope of his employment. We disagree. 

¶ 47 Vicarious liability is a special form of secondary liability 

whereby an employer is liable for the torts of its employees when 

they are acting within the scope of their employment. First Nat’l 

Bank of Durango v. Lyons, 2015 COA 19, ¶ 36; Stokes v. Denver 

Newspaper Agency, LLP, 159 P.3d 691, 693 (Colo. App. 2006). In 

order to find the employer liable, the court must first find the 

employee liable. See Arnold By & Through Valle v. Colo. State Hosp., 

Dep’t of Insts., 910 P.2d 104, 107 (Colo. App. 1995). 
21

¶ 48 Again, here, Semler has failed to allege any tortious conduct 

committed by Bewley and, thus, there is no conduct for which 

Bewley’s employer could be vicariously liable. 

¶ 49 Therefore, we conclude that Semler has failed to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 

F. Breach of Contract 

¶ 50 Finally, Semler contends that Berenbaum Weinsheink 

breached its contract with the Association by allowing Bewley to 

represent one Association member against another. 

¶ 51 Semler alleges that the president of the Association “instructed 

Bewley that neither he nor Berenbaum Weinshienk was to 

represent the . . . Association against any member of the . . . 

Association or to represent one member . . . against another” and 

that Bewley agreed to those terms. Based solely on the pleading 

allegations, we consider this “instruction” as a contract of which 

Semler was an intended beneficiary. 

¶ 52 Generally, an individual who is not a party to the contract may 

not assert a claim for breach of that contract. See Parrish 

Chiropractic Ctrs., P.C. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 874 P.2d 1049, 

1056 (Colo. 1994). One exception to this general rule, however, is 
22

in the case of third-party beneficiaries. See id.; Smith v. TCI 

Commc’ns, Inc., 981 P.2d 690, 693 (Colo. App. 1999). “A third-party 

beneficiary may enforce a contract only if the parties to that 

contract intended to confer a benefit on the third party when 

contracting; it is not enough that some benefit incidental to the 

performance of the contract may accrue to the third party.” Everett 

v. Dickinson & Co., Inc., 929 P.2d 10, 12 (Colo. App. 1996). 

¶ 53 Here, as a member of the Association, Semler is arguably a 

third-party beneficiary of this agreement between Bewley and the 

Association. From the facts Semler has alleged, the intent of any 

agreement may have been to protect Association members. 

However, this question may be illuminated by evidence once the 

case goes beyond the pleading stage. See Parrish, 874 P.2d at 1056 

(“While the intent to benefit the non-party need not be expressly 

recited in the contract, the intent must be apparent from the terms 

of the agreement, the surrounding circumstances, or both.”). 

¶ 54 We also conclude that Baker v. Wood, Ris & Hames, 

Professional Corp., 2016 CO 5, does not require a different result. 

In Baker, the plaintiffs, devisees of a testator’s estate, alleged that 

the attorney representing the testator had failed to properly advise 
23

the testator and the devisees — as intended third-party 

beneficiaries — thus frustrating the testator’s intent to treat all 

devisees equally. The supreme court reaffirmed the strict privity 

rule and held that an attorney’s liability to a nonclient, for work 

performed on behalf of a client, is limited to “circumstances in 

which the attorney has committed fraud or a malicious or tortious 

act, including negligent misrepresentation.” Id. at ¶ 35. 

¶ 55 Unlike in Baker, Semler has not alleged in his breach of 

contract claim that the breach occurred because the legal work 

performed by Bewely for either the Association or the Perfect Place 

defendants was deficient. Instead, Semler alleges that Bewley’s 

representation of the Perfect Place defendants in their attempt to 

acquire the parking spaces breached the contract between Bewley 

and the Association because those defendants’ interests were 

adverse to Semler’s. This difference undercuts the policy 

considerations identified in Baker as supporting the strict privity 

rule. 

¶ 56 Therefore, we conclude that Semler has sufficiently pleaded a 

third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim under C.R.C.P. 
24

12(b)(5). Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for 

further proceedings on this claim. 

VI. Attorney Fees 

¶ 57 Following its dismissal of Semler’s action, the court awarded 

defendants their attorney fees under section 13-17-201, C.R.S. 

2015. Semler contends that if we reverse the dismissal order, this 

award must necessarily be reversed. We agree in part. 

¶ 58 Section 13-17-201 provides: 

In all actions brought as a result of . . . the tort 

of any other person, where any such action is 

dismissed on motion of the defendant prior to 

trial under rule 12(b) of the Colorado rules of 

civil procedure, such defendant shall have 

judgment for his reasonable attorney fees in 

defending the action. 

An award for fees under this statute is appropriate where the entire 

action, not just some of the claims, is dismissed. See State v. 

Golden’s Concrete Co., 962 P.2d 919, 925 (Colo. 1998), as modified 

on denial of reh’g June 22, 1998; Dubray v. Intertribal Bison Co-op., 

192 P.3d 604, 606-07 (Colo. App. 2008). A division of this court 

has further concluded that the statute applies separately to each 

defendant. Smith v. Snowmass Vill., 919 P.2d 868, 873-74 (Colo. 

App. 1996). Thus, so long as all claims against a single defendant 
25

were dismissed, even though claims against other defendants may 

survive C.R.C.P. 12(b) motions, that defendant may recover under 

the statute. Id. 

¶ 59 Here, we have concluded that only Semler’s breach of contract 

claim survives C.R.C.P. 12(b) dismissal. Thus, because that claim 

was not pleaded against the Perfect Place defendants, we leave the 

attorney fees award to them undisturbed. See Jaffe v. City & Cty. of 

Denver, 15 P.3d 806, 813-14 (Colo. App. 2000). But the fees award 

under this statute to Bewley and Berenbaum Weinshienk cannot 

stand, and we reverse that portion of the court’s order. See Sotelo 

v. Hutchens Trucking Co., Inc., 166 P.3d 285, 287 (Colo. App. 

2007) (“[A] defendant may not recover attorney fees under § 13–17–

201 when (1) the plaintiff’s action includes both tort and nontort 

claims and (2) the defendant has obtained dismissal of the tort 

claims, but not of the nontort claims, under C.R.C.P. 12(b).”). 

VII. Appellate Attorney Fees 

¶ 60 Berenbaum Weinshienk, Bewley, and Perfect Place have 

requested appellate attorney fees under C.A.R. 39.1. Because 

Berenbaum Weinshienk and Bewley were only partially successful 

on appeal and because we have concluded that they are not entitled 
26

to their trial court attorney fees under section 13-17-201, we 

further conclude that they are not entitled to appellate attorney 

fees. See In re Marriage of Roddy & Betherum, 2014 COA 96, ¶ 32; 

Mullins v. Med. Lien Mgmt., Inc., 2013 COA 134, ¶ 58; cf. Dubray, 

192 P.3d at 608. 

¶ 61 The Perfect Place defendants filed a Joinder in the Berenbaum 

Defendants’ Answer Brief and requested their attorney fees on 

appeal under C.A.R. 39.5.5 Because we have affirmed the trial 

court’s dismissal of all claims against the Perfect Place defendants 

and the award of fees to those defendants in the trial court, we 

conclude that the Perfect Place defendants are entitled to recover 

their appellate attorney fees. See Kreft v. Adolph Coors Co., 170 

P.3d 854, 859 (Colo. App. 2007). 

¶ 62 On remand the trial court shall determine what amount of 

appellate attorney fees the Perfect Place defendants should be 

awarded. 

VIII. Conclusion 

 

5 C.A.R. 39.5 was renumbered to C.A.R. 39.1 and amended effective 

June 9, 2016. There were no substantive changes made that would 

be applicable here. 
27

¶ 63 We affirm the trial court’s order, albeit partially on different 

grounds, dismissing all of Semler’s claims except his claim for 

breach of contract. We remand the case to the trial court for 

further proceedings on this one claim and for the trial court to 

determine the amount of any appellate attorney fees to which the 

Perfect Place defendants are entitled. And we affirm the trial court’s 

order awarding attorney fees to the Perfect Place defendants, but 

reverse the award of attorney fees to the remaining defendants. 

JUDGE WEBB and JUDGE PLANK concur.