SUMMARY

December 1, 2022

2022COA137

No. 21CA1299, Mother Doe v. Wellbridge Club Management —

Contracts — Exculpatory Agreements; Torts — Premises 

Liability — Negligence 

A division of the court of appeals considers whether an 

exculpatory provision in a membership agreement is valid as 

applied to negligence-related claims against an athletic club based 

on the sexual abuse of a minor on and off the club’s premises by a 

club employee. The division holds that the provision is not valid as 

applied to these claims because the provision does not express the 

parties’ intention to waive such claims in clear, unambiguous, and 

unequivocal language. As a result, the provision does not bar the 

plaintiff’s negligence and Premises Liability Act claims. The division 

reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of

the defendant and vacates an associated costs order.

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions 

constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by 

the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be 

cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. 

Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion 

should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2022COA137

Court of Appeals No. 21CA1299

City and County of Denver District Court No. 20CV31185

Honorable J. Eric Elliff, Judge

Mother Doe and Jane Doe,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Wellbridge Club Management LLC, d/b/a Colorado Athletic Club-Monaco 

a/k/a Club Monaco,

Defendant-Appellee.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, ORDER VACATED,

AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division V

Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO

Welling and Johnson, JJ., concur

Announced December 1, 2022

Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh Jardine, P.C., D. David Batchelder, Nelson 

Boyle, Jessica B. Prochaska, Alyssa C.E. Hill, Englewood, Colorado, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellants

Chipman Glasser, LLC, Mark T. Barnes, Jennifer M. Osgood, Denver, Colorado, 

for Defendant-Appellee
1

¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Mother Doe and Jane Doe (together, the Does), 

appeal the judgment entered in favor of defendant, Wellbridge Club 

Management LLC, d/b/a Colorado Athletic Club-Monaco, a/k/a 

Club Monaco (the Club), on Mother Doe’s negligence claims and 

Premises Liability Act (PLA) claim. The Does also appeal the order 

requiring Mother Doe to pay costs. Mother Doe brought the claims 

on behalf of her daughter, Jane Doe, who was sexually abused 

while a minor by a Club employee.1 The district court concluded 

that Mother Doe’s claims were barred by the exculpatory provision 

of the Club’s membership agreement. Addressing a novel issue in 

Colorado, we hold that the exculpatory provision does not bar 

Mother Doe’s claims related to the sexual abuse of her daughter. 

Therefore, we reverse the judgment, vacate the costs order, and 

remand the case for further proceedings. 

I. Factual and Procedural History

¶ 2 Jane Doe was a minor at all times relevant to this case. In 

July 2014, she became a member of the Club when her grandfather 

1 Mother Doe filed the complaint as parent and legal guardian of 

Jane Doe. Jane Doe has joined Mother Doe’s notice of appeal and 

appellate briefs. 
2

signed a membership agreement on her behalf. In the fall of 2015, 

Jane Doe began taking tennis lessons from Milos Koprivica, an 

employee of the Club. From August 2016 to February 2017, 

Koprivica sexually abused Jane Doe. In her complaint, Mother Doe 

alleged that the abuse happened both on and off the Club’s 

premises. The Club terminated Koprivica’s employment in 

February 2017. He later pleaded guilty to criminal charges of child 

abuse and sexual exploitation of a child as a result of his abuse of 

Jane Doe. 

¶ 3 Mother Doe sued the Club, asserting the following claims: 

(1) liability under the PLA, § 13-21-115, C.R.S. 2016;2 (2) negligent 

hiring and retention; (3) negligent supervision; (4) negligence; 

(5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (6) respondeat 

superior liability. On the Club’s motion, the district court 

dismissed the PLA claim insofar as it alleged abuse that occurred 

off the Club’s premises. The court also dismissed the negligencebased claims insofar as they alleged abuse that occurred on the 

2 Because the PLA has since been amended, we rely on the version 

in effect at the time of the incidents alleged in this case.
3

Club’s premises. Finally, the court dismissed the negligent hiring 

and respondeat superior claims. 

¶ 4 The Club moved for summary judgment on the remaining 

claims. The Club advanced two arguments: (1) the exculpatory 

provision in the membership agreement barred the claims; and 

(2) no evidence showed that the Club knew, or should have known, 

that Koprivica was sexually abusing Jane Doe. 

¶ 5 The membership agreement contained the following 

exculpatory provision: 

WAIVER AND RELEASE OF PERSONAL 

INJURY – I recognize, acknowledge, and agree 

that athletic activities and the use of the Club 

may result in personal injuries, including 

serious bodily injury or death. By accepting 

this agreement in using the [Club’s] facilities, 

I assume all risks of injuries that I or my 

minor children may suffer and all 

responsibilities associated with the use of the 

Club’s athletic facilities, including any athletic 

activities, showers, steam rooms, or other Club 

usage. I agree, waive, and release [the Club], 

its owners, managers, and any of their 

subsidiaries, assigns, successors, attorneys, 

and insurers (the [Club] Parties) from any and 

all claims, damages, liabilities, expenses, and 

costs arising out of, or relating to (a) the 

negligence of [the Club], its owners, managers,

and employees, (b) any another member’s [sic], 

guest’s or invitee’s conduct, (c) the condition of 

[the Club’s] facilities, or (d) my or my Guests’ 
4

use of [the Club’s] facilities and activities, 

including without limitation, my or my Guests’ 

use of [the Club’s] parking lot, athletic 

facilities, athletic equipment, pool, sauna, 

steam room, showers, or any other facilities 

and activities associated with [the Club]. 

Further, I agree to indemnify and defend the 

[Club] Parties against any and all claims, 

damages, costs, [and] expenses, arising from 

my and my Guests[’] or Invitees[’] use of [the 

Club’s] facilities. 

¶ 6 In a written order, the district court decided that this provision 

barred Mother Doe’s claims. Specifically, the court concluded, 

“Plaintiff waived all injuries in connection with using the Club’s 

facilities. Separately, she waived all negligence claims against the 

Club.” The court continued, “Even if the negligence claim cannot be 

separated from the waiver regarding use of the Club (which is a 

strained reading), surely Plaintiff’s injuries did arise from the fact 

that she availed herself of the Club’s tennis coaching services.” 

Thus, the court granted summary judgment in the Club’s favor 

without addressing the Club’s second argument. 

¶ 7 Mother Doe filed two motions to reconsider. In the first

motion, filed under C.R.C.P. 59, she argued that “the sexual 

grooming and sexual assault of a child is not contemplated by the 

membership agreement.” In the second motion, filed under 
5

C.R.C.P. 60, she argued that a new Colorado law — section 13-20-

1204, C.R.S. 2022 — voided the exculpatory provision at issue. 

¶ 8 The court denied both motions. As to the first, the court ruled 

that Mother Doe simply repeated arguments the court had already 

considered and rejected. As to the second motion, the court gave 

three reasons for its ruling: (1) “the [new] law was not in effect at 

the time of the [c]ourt’s ruling, and indeed is still not in effect 

today”; (2) “the law clearly reflects the legislature’s intent that it 

apply prospectively”; and (3) “the new law does not affect the law 

relied on by the [c]ourt in its summary judgment order.” 

¶ 9 On appeal, the Does contend that the district court erred 

because “[t]here is no evidence that the Does understood or 

intended that the waiver would extend to extinguish the Club’s 

responsibility for its employee’s grooming and sexual assault of 

Jane Doe.” Alternatively, the Does contend that reversal is required 

because section 13-20-1204 “declared the exculpatory clause void 

as contrary to public policy.” Finally, the Does ask us to vacate the 

court’s costs order if we reverse the summary judgment order. 

¶ 10 Because we conclude that the exculpatory provision does not 

bar Mother Doe’s claims, we reverse the summary judgment, vacate 
6

the costs order, and remand the case for further proceedings on 

Mother Doe’s claims. As a result, we do not address the Does’ 

arguments based on section 13-20-1204.

II. Validity of the Exculpatory Provision 

as Applied to Mother Doe’s Claims

¶ 11 The Does contend that the exculpatory provision does not bar 

Mother Doe’s claims because Jane Doe’s grandfather “could not

[have] fathom[ed]” that he was releasing the right to bring claims 

based on Jane Doe’s injuries resulting from a Club employee’s 

sexual abuse of her. We agree that the exculpatory provision is not 

valid as applied to those claims.

A. Standard of Review and General Principles

¶ 12 Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings and 

supporting documents establish that no genuine issue of material 

fact exists and judgment should be entered as a matter of law. 

Redden v. Clear Creek Skiing Corp., 2020 COA 176, ¶ 12. We review 

a summary judgment ruling de novo. Id. Here, the district court 

granted summary judgment based solely on the exculpatory 

provision. Whether this provision is valid is a question of law that 

we review de novo. Id. at ¶ 13.
7

¶ 13 “Generally, exculpatory agreements have long been 

disfavored.” B & B Livery, Inc. v. Riehl, 960 P.2d 134, 136 (Colo. 

1998); Stone v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., 2016 COA 189M, ¶ 14 

(quoting B & B Livery, 960 P.2d at 136). In no event will an 

exculpatory agreement be permitted to shield against a claim of 

willful and wanton conduct. Chadwick v. Colt Ross Outfitters, Inc., 

100 P.3d 465, 467 (Colo. 2004). 

¶ 14 An exculpatory agreement attempting to insulate a party from 

liability for its own simple negligence, however, “is not necessarily 

void as against the public policy” of Colorado. Id. We strictly 

construe such an exculpatory agreement against the party seeking 

to limit its liability. Hamill v. Cheley Colo. Camps, Inc., 262 P.3d 

945, 952 (Colo. App. 2011); see Heil Valley Ranch, Inc. v. Simkin, 

784 P.2d 781, 784 (Colo. 1989). We also “closely scrutinize[]” an 

exculpatory agreement under four factors (the Jones factors) to 

determine whether it is valid: (1) the existence of a duty to the 

public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the 

contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the parties’ 

intention was expressed in clear and unambiguous language. 
8

Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981); see Redden, 

¶ 16.3

B. Analysis

¶ 15 The question presented is whether the exculpatory provision 

bars Jane Doe’s right (or Mother Doe’s right, on Jane Doe’s behalf) 

to pursue negligence claims against the Club related to the risk that 

a Club employee would sexually abuse Jane Doe. We conclude that 

the provision does not bar these claims because it does not express 

the parties’ intention to waive such claims in clear, unambiguous, 

3 In the context of a parent’s purported waiver of a child’s claims, 

the General Assembly has prescribed an additional requirement. 

See Wycoff v. Grace Cmty. Church of Assemblies of God, 251 P.3d 

1260, 1264 (Colo. App. 2010). Section 13-22-107(3), C.R.S. 2022, 

provides that “[a] parent of a child may, on behalf of the child, 

release or waive the child’s prospective claim for negligence.” But 

see § 13-22-107(4) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to 

permit a parent acting on behalf of his or her child to waive the 

child’s prospective claim against a person or entity for a willful and 

wanton act or omission, a reckless act or omission, or a grossly 

negligent act or omission.”). To be valid and enforceable, however, 

the parent’s decision to sign a waiver must be “voluntary and 

informed.” § 13-22-107(1)(a)(V). Because the Does rely primarily 

on the test from Jones v. Dressel, 623 P.2d 370, 376 (Colo. 1981), 

and the application of that test is sufficient to resolve this appeal, 

we do not address whether the exculpatory provision runs afoul of 

section 13-22-107(1)(a)(V).
9

and unequivocal language. Therefore, with respect to these claims, 

the exculpatory provision is not enforceable. 

¶ 16 Because the Does contend only that the provision fails to 

satisfy the fourth Jones factor, we confine our analysis to that 

factor. See Jones, 623 P.2d at 376. To reiterate, when determining 

the validity of an exculpatory agreement under the fourth Jones

factor, we must closely scrutinize “the agreement to ensure that the 

intent of the parties is expressed in clear, unambiguous, and 

unequivocal language.” Stone, ¶ 14; see Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 

467. The question is not whether a detailed textual analysis would 

lead a court to determine that the language, even if ambiguous, 

would ultimately bar the plaintiff’s claims. Stone, ¶ 22. Instead, we 

examine the “actual language of the agreement for legal jargon, 

length and complication, and any likelihood of confusion or failure

of a party to recognize the full extent of the release provisions.” 

Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467.

¶ 17 The exculpatory provision in this case begins by 

acknowledging that “athletic activities and the use of the Club may 

result in personal injuries, including serious bodily injury or death.” 

The provision then identifies the “risks of injuries” that the signer 
10

“assume[s]” — those “associated with the use of the Club’s athletic 

facilities, including any athletic activities, showers, steam rooms, or 

other Club usage.” The ensuing waiver and release of claims 

correspond to those assumed risks: 

I agree, waive, and release [the Club Parties] 

from any and all claims, damages, liabilities, 

expenses, and costs arising out of, or relating 

to (a) the negligence of [the Club], its owners, 

managers, and employees, (b) any another 

member’s [sic], guest’s or invitee’s conduct, 

(c) the condition of [the Club’s] facilities, or 

(d) my or my Guests’ use of [the Club’s]

facilities and activities, including without 

limitation, my or my Guests’ use of [the Club’s]

parking lot, athletic facilities, athletic 

equipment, pool, sauna, steam room, showers, 

or any other facilities and activities associated 

with [the Club]. 

¶ 18 When read as a whole, the “dominant focus” of the exculpatory 

provision is on the risks of athletic activities associated with the use 

of the Club’s facilities. Stone, ¶ 27. The provision makes no 

mention of the risk of sexual assault or of activities raising such a 

risk. Although a release “need not contain any magic words to be 

valid,” it must contain “some reference to waiving personal injury 

claims based on the activity being engaged in.” Wycoff v. Grace 

Cmty. Church of Assemblies of God, 251 P.3d 1260, 1265 (Colo. 
11

App. 2010) (emphasis added). On its face, the exculpatory provision 

does not indicate that the signer releases claims associated with 

sexual abuse or with the Club’s alleged negligence in failing to 

protect its members from sexual abuse by its employees. 

¶ 19 Even so, the Club argues that the provision’s reference to “any 

and all claims,” including those related to its “negligence,” 

necessarily encompasses the type of claims alleged here. The Club 

says this reference is dispositive because all of Mother Doe’s claims 

are rooted in negligence theories. We cannot, however, consider the 

reference to negligence in isolation from the rest of the agreement. 

As noted, we must examine the agreement as a whole to assess 

whether it creates reflects a “likelihood” that a party would fail to 

recognize that the release provision extended to Mother Doe’s 

particular claims. See Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 467.

¶ 20 The relevant case law illustrates this point. For instance, in 

the seminal Jones case, the supreme court considered a plaintiff 

who was injured during a skydiving trip when the airplane crashed. 

See 623 P.2d at 372-73. Before the trip, the plaintiff had signed an 

agreement releasing the defendant, the skydiving facilities operator, 

from “any and all liability [and] claims,” including those resulting 
12

from the defendant’s “negligence.” Id. at 372. The plaintiff sued the 

defendant, alleging negligence as the cause of the crash. See id. at 

373. The supreme court concluded that the exculpatory agreement 

clearly and unambiguously expressed the parties’ intention to 

release the defendant from the plaintiff’s claim. See id. at 378. But 

the court did not rely solely on the fact that the agreement “used 

the word ‘negligence.’” Id. Instead, the court also emphasized that 

the agreement “specifically included injuries sustained ‘while upon 

the aircraft of the [defendant].’” Id. In other words, the agreement 

referred to the type of injury (and risk of injury) at issue in the 

plaintiff’s claim. 

¶ 21 Similarly, in Wycoff, a child attending a church-sponsored 

event was injured while being pulled behind an all-terrain vehicle 

on an inner tube over a frozen lake. 251 P.3d at 1264. Although 

an exculpatory agreement signed by the child’s mother said the 

child would participate in “all activities associated with” the event, 

the agreement did not describe those activities and “certainly d[id] 

not suggest” the particular activity that led to the child’s injuries. 

Id. The division concluded that the agreement did “not pass muster 

. . . under Jones” because it did not provide information allowing 
13

the mother “to assess the degree of risk and the extent of possible 

injuries from any activity.” Id. at 1265. 

¶ 22 Other Colorado decisions confirm that a court must consider 

the entire agreement — including its description of the risks 

assumed and the activities envisioned — when assessing whether 

the parties’ intent to extinguish liability for the claim at issue was 

clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally expressed. See

Chadwick, 100 P.3d at 468-69 (considering the entire agreement 

and concluding that, although it did not use the term “negligence,” 

the agreement’s applicability depended on “whether [the plaintiff] 

was injured while participating in the activities described in the 

contract”); Heil, 784 P.2d at 784 (explaining that, while the release 

did not mention “negligence,” the release “specifically addressed a 

risk that adequately described the circumstances of [the plaintiff’s] 

injury”); Redden, ¶¶ 27-34 (looking beyond the agreement’s 

reference to “negligence” and noting that the agreement 

unambiguously encompassed the specific risk at issue). 

¶ 23 In particular, and in respectful disagreement with the district 

court, we find the reasoning of the Stone decision instructive here. 

In Stone, ¶ 3, a member of a fitness club tripped on a blow dryer
14

cord that hung to the floor beneath a sink in the club’s locker room. 

The division concluded that the exculpatory clause in the 

membership agreement did not clearly and unambiguously apply to 

the member’s PLA claim against the club. Id. at ¶ 13. The division 

reached this conclusion even though the exculpatory clause 

expressly included the member’s waiver of any and all claims 

“resulting from the negligence” of the club. See id., app. at 2. 

Rather than focus solely on this aspect of the membership 

agreement, the division considered the agreement as a whole. 

¶ 24 The Stone division explained that the agreement (1) was 

written in dense fine print; (2) was replete with legal jargon; 

(3) referred to unidentified “chapters,” which made it “ambiguous 

and confusing”; (4) focused on the risks associated with exercise 

and the use of exercise equipment, not on the risks associated with 

use of the locker room; (5) used the phrase “inherent risk of injury” 

in the assumption of the risk section, which traditionally 

“address[es] waivers of liability only for activities that are dangerous 

or potentially dangerous”; (6) contained a “release of liability” 

provision whose scope could be determined only by reference to the 

assumption of risk clause; and (7) repeatedly used the phrases 
15

“includes, but is not limited to,” “including and without limitation,” 

as well as simply “including,” which appellate courts had 

interpreted to have conflicting meanings. Id. at ¶¶ 24-33.

¶ 25 Several of the circumstances present in Stone are present in 

this case. First, the membership agreement, including the 

exculpatory provision, is written in very dense fine print. See also 

Monitronics Int’l, Inc. v. Veasley, 746 S.E.2d 793, 802-03 (Ga. Ct. 

App. 2013) (concluding that, because an exculpatory clause was not 

explicit and prominent, it did not bar a homeowner’s negligence 

claim against her home security company related to her sexual 

assault by an intruder). Second, the agreement uses much of the 

same legal jargon used in the agreement at issue in Stone: 

“subsidiaries, assigns, successors”; “including without limitation”; 

“I assume all risks of injuries”; and “I agree to indemnify and 

defend” the Club. As indicated in Stone, ¶ 25, “The use of such 

technical legal language militates against the conclusion that the 

release of liability was clear and simple to a lay person.” 

¶ 26 Third, the exculpatory provision focuses on the risks of 

engaging in athletic activities and using the Club’s athletic facilities. 

Hence, a lay person could sensibly conclude that the provision 
16

released only those claims associated with these “types of risks.” 

Id. at ¶ 27. Indeed, as in Stone, the exculpatory provision here 

followed a clause that advised members to “consult with a physician 

prior to engaging in exercise,” further evincing an intention to 

encompass claims related to injuries arising out of strenuous 

exercise and exercise equipment. See id.4 

¶ 27 Fourth, the exculpatory provision here used both “including 

without limitation” and “including” — which, as the Stone division 

explained, left the reader “to guess whether the phrases have 

different meanings” and was ambiguous in light of conflicting 

appellate decisions on whether such phrases are expansive or 

restrictive. Id. at ¶ 32; compare Maehal Enters., Inc. v. Thunder 

Mountain Custom Cycles, Inc., 313 P.3d 584, 590 (Colo. App. 2011) 

(declining to treat the phrase “including, but not limited to” as 

restrictive), with Ridgeview Classical Schs. v. Poudre Sch. Dist., 214 

P.3d 476, 483 (Colo. App. 2008) (concluding that this phrase did 

not exempt the statute from the limiting rule of ejusdem generis). 

4 We acknowledge that, unlike the agreement in Stone v. Life Time 

Fitness, Inc., 2016 COA 189M, ¶ 33, the exculpatory provision here 

also referred to the risks of using showers and steam rooms. Still, 

we find Stone’s analysis useful overall.
17

Like in Stone, this ambiguity — expansive versus restrictive — is 

“critical” because nothing in the membership agreement refers to 

risks of being sexually abused by an employee or the Club’s 

negligence leading to such abuse. Stone, ¶ 33 (reasoning that this 

ambiguity was “critical because nothing in the Agreement refers to 

risks of using sinks or locker rooms”).

¶ 28 Considering these circumstances in combination, we conclude 

that the exculpatory provision in this case created a substantial 

likelihood that a reader would fail to recognize the full extent of the 

release provision — specifically, that it could apply to the risk of a 

Club employee’s sexual abuse of a Club member due, in part, to the 

Club’s alleged negligence or failure to exercise reasonable care. See

id. at ¶ 35. Relatedly, while we recognize that the exculpatory 

provision released claims based on use of the Club and “activities 

associated with” the Club, we reject the notion that the sexual 

abuse was an activity associated with the Club’s tennis coaching 

services.

¶ 29 Consequently, the membership agreement (1) does not clearly, 

unambiguously, and unequivocally bar Mother Doe’s negligence 

and PLA claims against the Club based on Jane Doe’s alleged 
18

injuries sustained as a result of a Club employee’s sexual abuse; 

and (2) is not valid as applied to those claims. See id. at ¶ 2; see 

also Wycoff, 251 P.3d at 1265 (“The form is legally insufficient to 

release plaintiff’s personal injury claims.”).

III. The Club’s Alternative Argument to Affirm

¶ 30 In the event we conclude, as we have, that the exculpatory 

provision does not bar Mother Doe’s claims, the Club asks us to 

affirm the summary judgment nonetheless because the claims fail 

on the merits. The district court did not reach this issue. So our 

reversal of the judgment does not mean that the Club must 

necessarily go to trial on Mother Doe’s claims; rather, the court on 

remand may address the Club’s alternative argument for summary 

judgment. If the district court grants summary judgment on that 

ground, this court could then review that ruling, with the benefit of 

the district court’s reasoning, if a party seeks review.

¶ 31 Therefore, although cognizant that an appellate court 

ordinarily may affirm on any ground supported by the record, 

Taylor v. Taylor, 2016 COA 100, ¶ 31, we decline to consider the 

Club’s alternative argument for summary judgment in the first 

instance. See Colo. Pool Sys., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2012 COA 
19

178, ¶ 51 (declining to consider alternative ground for summary 

judgment “because the trial court did not consider [that ground] in 

its order granting summary judgment” (citing Greystone Constr., 

Inc. v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1290 (10th Cir. 

2011) (“[T]he better practice on issues raised [below] but not ruled 

on by the district court is to leave the matter to the district court in 

the first instance.”) (citation omitted))); Estes Park Chamber of Com. 

v. Town of Estes Park, 199 P.3d 11, 15-16 (Colo. App. 2007)

(remanding for further proceedings, including the district court’s 

assessment of whether material facts were undisputed and whether 

summary judgment was appropriate). After all, we are a court of 

review, not of first view. See PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris 

Chiropractic, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 139 S. Ct. 2051, 2056 (2019).

IV. Costs Order

¶ 32 Because we reverse the summary judgment, we vacate the 

order requiring Mother Doe to pay costs.

V. Conclusion 

¶ 33 The judgment is reversed, the costs order is vacated, and the 

case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.
20

JUDGE WELLING and JUDGE JOHNSON concur.