1

DISTRICT COURT 

Jefferson County, State of Colorado 

100 Jefferson County Parkway 

Golden, Colorado 80401 

Plaintiff: CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL CENTER, 

LTD., LLLP, a Colorado limited liability partnership 

v. 

Defendant: GAROLD B. KRAFT (d.b.a. EXOTIC 

MOTORS), an individual; 

and 

Plaintiff: BANK OF CHOICE, a Colorado Corporation 

v. 

Defendants: CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL CENTER, 

LTD., LLLP, a Colorado limited liability partnership; and 

RANDOLPH CURRIER, an individual 

v. 

Third-Party Defendants: GOLDEN APPRAISAL 

SERVICES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; 

GAROLD B. KRAFT, an individual; VAL SIMONE, an 

individual; and ERIC TUERS, an individual. 

▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲

Case Number: 

2010 CV 4988 

Div.: 4 Ctrm: 5C 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Bank of Choice’s Motion to File Amended 

Complaint (the “Motion”). The Court, after reviewing the pleadings, case file, and applicable 

rules and law hereby issues the following Order. 

I. BACKGROUND

 Bank of Choice loaned $3,145,000 to Crossroads Commercial Center (“CCC”), and 

Randolph Currier (“Currier”) personally guaranteed the note. CCC contends that the contract 

between the parties has been voided or rescinded, and contends that CCC has no obligation to repay the loan. CCC does, however, admit receiving loan proceeds in the amount of $3,145,000. 

Accordingly, Bank of Choice filed the Motion at issue on April 7, 2011, which requests leave to 

EFILED Document 

CO Jefferson County District Court 1st JD 

Filing Date: Jun 13 2011 11:34AM MDT 

Filing ID: 38105340 

Review Clerk: Beth B

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 17 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

add an additional claim of quantum meruit against both CCC and Currier. CCC and Currier 

collectively filed a Response on April 26, 2011 that does not object to the addition of a quantum 

meruit claim against CCC, but does object to such a claim being asserted against Currier. Bank 

of Choice filed a Reply on May 9, 2011. 

II. ANALYSIS

Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 15(a): 

 “A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a 

responsive pleading is filed or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive 

pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, 

he may so amend it any time within twenty days after it is filed. Otherwise, a 

party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the 

adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” 

 Granting leave to amend is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Benton v. 

Adams, 56 P.3d 81, 85 (Colo. 2002). Leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of 

any apparent or declared reason such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of 

the movant; repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed; undue 

prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment; or futility of 

amendment. Id. at 86. An amendment is futile if it merely restates the same facts as the original 

complaint in different terms, reasserts a claim on which the court previously ruled, fails to state a 

legal theory, or could not withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. at 86-87. 

 Currier argues that the requested amendment would be futile because a claim of quantum 

meruit against Currier could not survive a motion to dismiss. To succeed on a claim of quantum 

meruit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant: (1) received a benefit, (2) at the plaintiff’s 

expense, (3) under circumstances that would make it unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit 

without paying. Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs., 11 P.3d 441, 445 (Colo. 2000). Currier 

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 17 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

argues that CCC was the entity that actually received the funds and benefitted from the loan, and 

that as a mere guaranty, Currier did not receive a personal benefit from the loan. 

 In its Reply, Bank of Choice lists several benefits that Currier received personally as a 

result of the loan, including the receipt of rents from the commercial real estate that was 

purchased with funds from the loan, the use and benefit of the property that was purchased in 

order to conduct Currier’s personal business, personal tax benefits to Currier realized from an 

I.R.C. § 1031 exchange, and benefits flowing to Currier as the majority owner and managing 

general partner of CCC. 

For purposes of a quantum meruit claim, a benefit denotes any form of advantage. 

Dudding, 11 P.3d at 445. Therefore, the benefit can be indirect, such as those listed by Bank of 

Choice in its Reply. The Court finds that, for the purposes of the Motion at issue only, the 

benefits received by Currier are sufficient to support a claim of quantum meruit against Currier. 

Accordingly, Bank of Choice shall be permitted to amend its complaint to add a claim of 

quantum meruit against both CCC and Currier. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Bank of Choice’s Motion is hereby GRANTED.

 

Dated this 13th day of June, 2011. 

BY THE COURT: 

 

 _____________________________ 

 Tamara S. Russell 

 District Court Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 17 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2011, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document was served on all parties via e-filing with LexisNexis File & Serve. 

________________________ 

 Law Clerk, Division 4 

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 17 Filed 08/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4