Opinion ID: 1122522
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether section 13-80-127, 6 C.R.S. (1973) or section 13-80-104, 6A C.R.S. (1987), applies to the statute of limitations issue in this case.

Text: 2. Whether a prior owner's knowledge is considered in determining whether a subsequent buyer's claim against a builder for negligence is barred by the statute of limitations in section 13-80-127. 3. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that [Wood Bros.'] appeal of the statute of limitations issue was frivolous and in awarding the [Howards] attorney fees and costs for having to oppose this argument on appeal. We affirm that part of the court of appeals decision which found that section 13-80-127(1)(a-b) is the applicable statute of limitations in this case, and accordingly, we hold that under the plain language of that section, the action brought by the Howards against Wood Bros. for the negligent construction and design of their home is not time-barred. Moreover, based on the record before us we need not and do not reach Wood Bros.' argument that the knowledge of the Howards' immediate predecessors in title, i.e., the Blakes, must be considered to determine whether the Howards' action, brought as the damaged part[ies], was time-barred. Finally, we disapprove of that portion of the court of appeals opinion finding Wood Bros.' appeal to be frivolous, and therefore reverse that portion of the court of appeals decision which held that the Howards are entitled to attorney fees and costs connected with the appeal.