06/03/2026
Here's an article I submitted to the Colorado Lawyer magazine regarding the eviction process from a landlord attorney's perspective. It was rejected for being too opinionated. Is it? You be the judge.
Squeezed Out: How Colorado's Landlord-Tenant Laws Are Driving Small Landlords From the Market
By John Finger
Introduction
This article will discuss recent landlord-tenant changes from the standpoint of a landlord’s rights attorney.
Effect of Recent Legislation
In recent years, the Colorado Legislature and Governor have enacted laws which have drastically altered the balance of power between landlords and tenants. In March, we heard from a tenants’ rights attorney. Nobody has spoken out on behalf of landlords - until now.
Before we go any further, let's be clear about who most landlords actually are. They are not the faceless corporate entities our politicians love to vilify. Although there are some bad apples, most landlords are teachers, veterans, retirees, and tradespeople who saved enough to buy a second property, hoping to supplement their income or fund their retirement. The overwhelming majority of them want to comply with the law. They want good tenants, steady rent, and peaceful relationships. The problem is not their intentions. The problem is that the law has changed so dramatically, so rapidly, and with so little notice or public education, that even the most conscientious small landlord has no realistic chance of keeping up.
Everything starts with a written lease. This should seem obvious, but I still have clients who begin evictions based on an oral lease. These landlords have an uphill battle. They can’t charge late fees. They have to give a tenant at least 60 days’ notice before raising rents, even if the tenant has been in residence for less than one year . In some circumstances, the required notice stretches to 90 days, as discussed below. I had two landlords, each in their 80’s, who refused to put anything in writing because they trusted their tenants. Both died broke. The law does not reward trust. It rewards documentation.
Rent increases are now allowed only once every 12 months, regardless of rising insurance premiums, property taxes, or maintenance costs the landlord may face mid-lease. Worse, a landlord cannot serve a notice to terminate a tenancy if the primary purpose of that termination is to raise the rent. In other words, if the numbers no longer work, the landlord's hands are tied. They cannot raise rent more than once a year, and they cannot end the tenancy in order to reset the rent to market rate. They are simply expected to absorb the loss.
Late fees have been drastically curtailed. A landlord cannot charge a late fee unless the rent owed is at least seven days past due. The late fee is limited to the greater of (1) $50 or (2) 5% of the amount due. Landlords could previously charge a per-day late fee; those days are gone, and with them went the most effective incentive for many tenants to pay on time. This severe reduction in late fees would not even cover the late fee that most landlords have to pay on their mortgages.
Landlords may no longer begin or continue an action in forcible entry and detainer (FED, the legal term for eviction), if the tenant is only late by the late fee amount. If a landlord has filed an FED for rent, late fees, court costs and attorney fees, and the tenant pays the amounts owed before the judge enters an order of possession, the FED is dismissed. If the complaint includes other grounds, however, the FED continues.
Before recent legislation, a landlord could begin an FED by giving a 21-day written notice with no justification required. Now, that notice is only available when the tenant has been in residence for less than one year. In all other situations, landlords must provide a specific legal justification for the ending of the lease.
Consider the pace of all these changes. In just the past few years, Colorado's landlord-tenant statutes have been overhauled multiple times, with significant amendments layered on top of prior amendments, often mid-lease cycle. A small landlord who carefully read and followed the law in January may find themselves in violation of a new law by June — a law they never heard of and that received little to no public education campaign. Large corporate landlords have legal departments and compliance teams to track these changes. The mom-and-pop landlord renting out a single-family home has none of that. Yet both are held to exactly the same standard.
It would be one thing if these laws were at least internally consistent and clearly written. They are not. As noted earlier, the grounds for a no-fault eviction and the grounds for a notice to terminate tenancy overlap in ways that are genuinely contradictory. I have sat across from experienced judges who have openly struggled to reconcile competing provisions of the FED statutes in real time from the bench. I have debated interpretation with opposing counsel who are also experienced in this area, and we have reached opposite conclusions — both in good faith. If attorneys and judges cannot reliably agree on what the law requires, what hope does a small landlord have of getting it right on their own? The complexity is not a feature. It is a barrier.
Nowadays, landlords must choose one of three different routes to pursue an FED.
“For Cause” Evictions, § 38-12-1303.
“For Cause” FEDs include nonpayment of rent, unauthorized occupants or pets, substantial violations, creating a nuisance, damaging the property, remaining in possession after the tenant was issued a no-fault eviction notice or after the property is sold at auction or pursuant to a court order.
When pursuing a “For Cause” FED, the landlord must first determine whether the tenant’s behavior is correctable. If so, the landlord serves a Demand for Compliance form, Joint Judicial Form (JDF) 99A, and then waits out the required period before proceeding with the FED.
Notice to Terminate Tenancy, CRS 13-40-104, 107, 107.5
When the tenant’s behavior cannot be corrected, the landlord serves a Notice to Terminate Tenancy, JDF 99B. This form is used when a landlord chooses not to renew a lease where the tenant has been in possession for less than one year; when a substantial violation has occurred - meaning a felony committed on or near the property and punishable by prison time of 180 days or more; or a repeat violation, such as chronic nonpayment of rent. To be clear: nonpayment of rent, standing alone, is not a substantial violation under the statute - no matter how it feels to the landlord who is owed the money.
Notice of No-Fault Eviction, C.R.S. § 38-12-1303
The landlord serves JDF 99C when the landlord wants the property back through no fault of the tenant. The landlord must state the reason for termination and generally give the tenant at least 90 days’ notice. Valid grounds for a no-fault eviction include: intent to demolish the property or convert it to a short-term rental; intent to make substantial repairs; intent to use or sell the property; the tenant’s refusal to sign a new rental agreement with reasonable terms; or a history of late payments. The last ground conflicts with the notice to terminate tenancy, where a repeat violation is also grounds for an FED. But, if you think this is confusing, just wait.
Notice, CRS 13-40-104
In the case of a substantial violation, the landlord must give the tenant a three-day written notice before beginning an FED . The same requirement applies to tenancies at will or sufferance, commercial leases and employer-provided housing.
Where the landlord serves a demand for compliance (JDF 99A), the standard notice is ten days from the date of service. Why? If a tenant hasn’t paid rent, the tenant knows that the tenant hasn’t paid rent. There are exceptions to the general ten-day notice. If the landlord has an “exempt residential property,” where the landlord owns five or fewer rental homes and states in the lease that the normal ten-day period does not apply, the landlord may use a five-day notice instead. Most small landlords own five or fewer rentals, but they routinely fail to include the required lease language and therefore forfeit the benefit.
Most of us assumed COVID-19 ended several years ago, but the federal CARES Act , enacted during the pandemic, still hangs around like a bad penny. It applies to all federally-subsidized housing. If the landlord’s mortgage is backed by a federal agency, such as the FHA or VA, the demand notice must be for thirty days – not ten. So, if you’re a landlord who served in the military, used your VA loan to buy your home and now rent it out, you must wait thirty days before initiating an FED, rather than just ten days. That is how your government thanks you for your service. Tenants who receive Section 8/FHA housing subsidies are also entitled to a 30-day notice, although their rent is already funded by taxpayers. Why? The logic, such as it is, escapes most landlords I know.
Service of Notices
This is one of the most convoluted aspects of the FED statute. When serving a demand for compliance or notice to terminate tenancy, the landlord must make at least two attempts at personal service. A successful first attempt eliminates the need for a second. If the tenant is not home on the first attempt, the landlord (or landlord’s agent) must return on another day and try again. Even if the tenant is in the living room, watching television and refuses to answer the door, the landlord must go on another day and try again before posting the notice. Why this waste? In an era where every smartphone captures a time-stamped photograph, one documented service attempt should be sufficient. It is not.
But wait…there’s more! Every notice - whether JDF 99A, 99B or 99C - must state a specific date by which a tenant must comply or vacate. If no date is stated, the notice is defective and will be thrown out in court, no matter how well-founded the underlying claim.
The JDF’s referenced throughout this article — 99A, 99B, 99C, 101, 102, 103, 108, 205, 206 — were designed by the Colorado Supreme Court to help self-represented landlords navigate the FED process. The intention was good. The ex*****on is another matter. These forms are revised frequently, sometimes without fanfare, and using an outdated version can doom an otherwise valid eviction. A landlord who downloaded JDF 99A six months ago may be using a form that has since been superseded. Beyond the version problem, the forms themselves are dense and technical. They embed legal requirements — specific dates, statutory citations, compliance language — that are hard to understand with or without legal training. These are not simple fill-in-the-blank forms. They are legal documents that require a working knowledge of the very statutes they were meant to simplify. Landlords trying to use them without an attorney are set up to fail.
To visualize the service requirements, think of three circles in front of you. The first circle represents the notice period. The second circle must, in most cases, account for the two personal service attempts on separate days. The third circle must state a specific date for the tenant to comply or vacate. The notice must be served in such a way that all three circles overlap. For these reasons, I no longer recommend that landlords serve their own notices - and of course, hiring someone to do it correctly comes at additional expense.
Mandatory Mediation
Tenants who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Cash Assistance through the Colorado Works Program are entitled to mandatory mediation before a landlord may commence an FED. The tenant must disclose one of these sources of income in order to be entitled to mediation. The tenant pays nothing for the mediation. The landlord, by contrast, pays their share of the mediation costs plus attorney fees to attend. It is one more delay, and one more expense, borne entirely by the landlord. Why should the landlord have to wait and pay for this extra step?
All FED mediations are set up through https://officedisputeresolution.youcanbook.me/. Additionally, several counties, El Paso and Pueblo among them, have eviction diversion programs. When the dispute is just about rent, tenants may apply at Colorado Legal Services (CLS) for rental assistance through a lottery system, or seek funds at various charitable organizations. The eviction summons must include a list of available resources with a website link and phone number for legal aid and rental assistance .
Serving the FED
Before commencing an FED, the landlord’s attorney confirm when the relevant county holds return dates. The return date must fall no less than seven days after the service on the tenant. These requirements add two more circles which have to overlap, complicating FEDs further.
Every FED requires a small book of documents to be served - and often mailed - to the tenant, whether or not the tenant reads them. The standard package includes a complaint (JDF 101); summons (JDF 102); Answer form (JDF 103); Request for Documents (JDF 108); Motion to Waive Fees (JDF 205); and an Order to Waive Fees (JDF 206). Some counties require additional forms. In El Paso County, which handles the highest FED volume in Colorado, an Advisement for Eviction Cases must also be served. The landlord may not personally serve these documents. If the process server does not personally serve the tenants, the entire packet must also be mailed to the tenants, necessitating an affidavit of service and potentially a certificate of mailing . All these documents can come at the cost of a small tree, in addition to money. So much for being environmentally friendly.
Answer Deadline
The tenant’s answer and any counterclaim(s) are due by the close of business on the return of service date. The tenant is also required to deliver their answer to the landlord or landlord’s attorney by mail – though in practice, most fail to do so. Most Plaintiffs’ attorneys check the Colorado Courts e-Filing System (CCEFS, formerly known as ICCES, before that acronym became associated with a terrorist organization) to determine whether a tenant has filed an answer.
The answer forms provided to tenants compound the problem by setting forth check-the-box defenses that often have no basis in law, misleading defendants into believing they have viable grounds to contest the eviction and occasionally misleading judges as well.
If the tenant files an answer at an actual hearing, the judge will schedule a trial. If no initial hearing takes place, the court clerk will contact both parties to schedule a trial. By statute, the possession trial must be held within 7 to 10 days of the return date, a requirement which is routinely ignored given the heavy volume of FED cases, resulting in further delays for the landlord. A well-worn tactic among some defense attorneys involves filing written answers which have no realistic chance of success on the merits but nonetheless trigger the right to a trial, forcing the landlord to wait, prepare, and pay counsel for a hearing that should never have been necessary. The result is a process that is nominally governed by strict statutory timelines but operates, in practice, on an indefinite schedule that serves the tenant and burdens the landlord.
If the tenant fails to file an answer, a judgment for possession (JPOS) will enter on the next business day. Forty-eight hours later, the landlord may apply for a writ of restitution (WOR), the document the sheriff requires to physically remove the tenant from the property.
Tenants may qualify for free legal representation. In Pueblo County, a CLS representative attends every return date and offers a free consultation to any interested tenant. Everywhere in Colorado, CLS may file an answer and appear at the possession trial on the tenant’s behalf, all at no cost to the tenant. Various CLS offices are responsible for every county in Colorado. No comparable program exists for landlords, who are broadly assumed to have the financial means to retain counsel on their own.
Either side can apply to waive the filing fee. If pro se landlords have any equity in their property, the application to waive the filing fee will most certainly be denied. If the landlord is represented by counsel, the request will likewise be denied. Tenants, who typically do not own real estate, are far more likely to have the fee waived. CLS attorneys similarly pay no filing fee.
There are some silver linings from COVID-19. One is that all parties may request to appear at either the return or trial over Webex. Also, either party may opt in at the CCEFS website to file and receive documents electronically.
Common Defenses
1. Partial payment. This is not a defense. The landlord must state the amount of rent in the demand for compliance notice. …”but a failure to pay such rent upon demand, when made, works a forfeiture.” A partial payment is not a payment of “such rent.” However, a full payment of the amount due before a judgment for possession orders will stop the FED .
2. Habitability. A tenant may raise habitability issues in defense of a landlord’s claim for rent. I could author an entire article on this issue alone. The big-picture habitability issues are: waterproofing and weather protection; plumbing and gas facilities; running water and reasonable amount of hot water; heating facilities; clean common areas; appropriate extermination of pests; enough garbage receptacles; floors, stairs and railings maintained; working locks on doors and windows; compliance with local building codes; mold; and bedbugs. In recent years, the Colorado government has enacted legislation imposing punitive damages on landlords who don’t maintain their properties. Some requirements are nearly impossible to meet. For example, when a landlord receives a report of bedbugs, the landlord shall obtain an inspection from a qualified inspector within 96 hours. What if the landlord is out of cell phone range and doesn’t get the call? Or is in the hospital? And how many qualified inspectors will be able to drop everything, make an appointment with the tenant(s), conduct an inspection and complete a report within 96 hours? Prior law required a tenant to pay the entire undisputed rent amount into the court registry when they raised a habitability defense. For example, if the rent was $2,000 and the tenant claimed that the habitability condition diminished the rental value by $500, the tenant would have to pay the $1,500 difference into the court registry. Now, the tenant can apply to have the entire payment waived. This means the tenant has no skin in the game when asserting a habitability defense. The landlord’s comeback is that the tenant has to have given written notice of the habitability condition prior to the filing of the eviction.
3. Domestic abuse. This area has been radically changed recently. The tenant can assert that domestic abuse is a cause for nonpayment of rent. The tenant then has to offer a plan to pay the outstanding rent at a minimum of $25 per month over nine months. I would challenge anyone to cover a mortgage payment in Colorado with only $25/mo. An alleged victim can claim domestic abuse with a self-attestation: no police report, protection order or qualified third-party report is required. I have recently litigated two of these cases. In my opinion, the domestic abuse statute was itself abused in both cases, because the alleged victim will not be held accountable if the domestic abuse claim is found to be without merit. Of course we want to protect victims of domestic violence, but landlords didn’t cause the circumstances which led to the domestic violence. The tenants signed their leases freely and willingly. So why should landlords be forced to pay for it? The abuser should be forced to pay for it. This has echoes of COVID-19: landlords didn’t cause the pandemic, but they had to pay for it when they couldn’t collect their rents. Many landlords didn’t survive that era, and I predict that many landlords won’t survive this era either, through no fault of their own.
Preparing for Trial
Both sides must disclose to each other any documents they plan to use at a possession trial. The general rule is for documents to be exchanged no more than 2 days before the possession trial. If the tenant raises habitability issues, the exchange deadline is 96 hours - or 4 calendar days – before trial. Most pro se landlords and tenants can opt in to file with CCEFS. In most cases, landlords will pay for this privilege; pro se tenants usually do not.
File Suppression
Prior to 2022, the filing of an FED was on public record. That area could be exploited by an unruly landlord by filing an eviction, meaning that a future landlord or employer could see that an eviction case had been filed against that tenant, even if the landlord lost the case. That was legitimately unfair to tenants. Since then, FED filings are suppressed from the public record unless and until the tenant loses. The parties may also agree to keep the case suppressed once the legal action concludes. Every tenant in an FED action should be concerned about possible lifting of file suppression, as this could inhibit the tenant’s ability to find another place to live or even hurt a tenant’s job prospects. If the parties cannot work out an agreement regarding file suppression, they proceed to trial. The parties often use file suppression as a factor when negotiating a settlement.
Trial
Normal court rules apply at trial. Both sides must be prepared to examine witnesses and introduce documentary and electronic evidence. Pro se parties frequently make the mistake of thinking that they can use pictures from their smartphones. This is not allowed. Anything on a mobile device must be filed electronically or physically ahead of trial.
If the landlord prevails at trial, a judge will award a JPOS to the landlord the following business day, and file suppression will be lifted. The court may award money damages for rent at that time, but most courts only award damages at the possession hearing if the tenant fails to appear. When both parties appear, most courts bifurcate the proceedings, allowing damages to be adjudicated at a later date, often months later.
If the tenant prevails at trial, the tenant retains possession, and the court may still schedule a future trial to determine damages.
After The Possession Trial
If the landlord prevails at trial, the landlord may apply for the WOR 48 hours (effectively two business days) later. Once the landlord obtains the WOR, the landlord takes the WOR (and checkbook) to the county sheriff’s civil division.
The Sheriff cannot physically evict a tenant until at least ten days have passed since JPOS. In larger jurisdictions, the wait is considerably longer. In Pueblo County, landlords routinely wait six weeks or more before the sheriff arrives. In the meantime, the landlord receives no rent but still must find the money to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance while waiting for the sheriff to arrive. Moreover, the WOR is only good for 49 days. The WOR may very well expire before the sheriff comes, necessitating the application for a new WOR.
Tenants awaiting eviction often retaliate. Some run bathwater all night long, depriving good tenants of hot water on a freezing morning and leaving the landlord with huge water and gas bills while playing babysitter between tenants. Tenants who are armed and/or have mental health issues present their own set of unique challenges. Some bad tenants will blare their “music” at all hours of the day and night, disturbing the good tenants’ rights of quiet enjoyment. In one case I handled, the offending tenants kept their young children at home while the noise raged without pause. The police and child protective services did nothing. The kids will have permanent hearing loss. Our governor and legislature’s coddling the rights of bad tenants harms the rights of good tenants at the same building, not just those of landlords.
On the day of the physical eviction, the landlord must arrange and pay for a moving crew and locksmith to be on-site and ready when the sheriff comes. The sheriff manages the people; the landlord manages the property, including moving the tenant’s property to the street. The sheriff typically allows only one hour for the landlord and crew to get everything out. Otherwise, the sheriff won’t show up or will leave early, leaving the landlord holding the bag once again.
Once the tenant and belongings have been physically removed, the landlord has additional expenses of cleaning and repairs, a process which could take months. The landlord may also be responsible for unpaid utilities left behind by the tenant, especially water. The landlord could pursue damages against the former tenant, but collecting on that judgment is a different matter entirely. The landlord can only be awarded attorney fees if the lease contains the magic language of reciprocity. The chances of collection are between slim and none.
Other Increasing Costs to Landlords
The cruelest irony of these laws is who ultimately suffers most from them. When a small landlord is driven out of the rental market — whether by selling, converting to condominiums, or losing a property to foreclosure — that is one fewer rental unit available to tenants. Small landlords are often the ones renting to tenants with imperfect credit histories, modest incomes, or other circumstances that make qualifying for a corporate-managed apartment complex difficult. When small landlords exit the market, those tenants do not suddenly find better options. They find fewer options, at higher prices, with less flexibility. The well-meaning laws designed to protect tenants are, in practice, shrinking the supply of housing available to the very tenants they were meant to help. Our legislators should follow the math.
Landlords are grappling with the same inflation problems faced by others. The average Colorado home insurance premium increased by 137%, from $1,745 to $4,142 between 2015 and 2024, according to mortgage escrow data published in a working paper in the National Bureau of Economic Research and reported by 9News. Property taxes have also escalated during that time period. The tax burden will be significantly higher in 2026, due to the expiration of the $55,000 valuation exemption . Maintenance fees, including parts and labor also face significant inflation. Landlords must pass these costs on to their tenants or risk losing their properties altogether. The inevitable result is less available, affordable rental housing.
Adding Up The Timelines
Let’s tally these timelines and see how long it takes to evict a bad tenant. Assume that rent is due on the first day of the month. First, there is the 7-day wait time before serving a demand for compliance notice. Add the demand period. Let’s call that 10 days. Then there’s the waiting period before the return date. Let’s average that out to 12 days. Then there’s the waiting period before the trial. Let’s average that out to 10 days. If the landlord prevails, then it’s waiting time until the sheriff comes. Let’s average that out to 21 days. That adds up to 60 days of legal process, followed by an average of 30 days for repairs and cleanup - a total of approximately 90 days during which the landlord receives no income while continuing to pay the mortgage (principal, interest, taxes, and insurance), utilities, maintenance, attorney fees, court costs, a moving crew, and the sheriff's fee. Very few small landlords have the financial reserves to absorb that.
To be fair, the vast majority of tenants are good ones—they pay on time, care for their units, and respect their neighbors. But as the saying goes, one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel. In the world of landlord-tenant law, that one bad actor can cost a landlord everything.
How Sausage is Made in Colorado
Years ago, a bill to raise the three-day demand notice period to ten days was introduced in the General Assembly’s Transportation, Housing and Local Government committee. (Yes, there really is such a committee. It reminds me of the bureau of rainwater, wood chips and fairy tales. ) Anyway, when the committee held open hearings, a time was allotted for opponents of that bill to testify. I joined more than 60 others in testifying against the bill. When the bill’s opponents testified, the bill’s sponsors conveniently left the room; they had no interest in hearing the consequences of the legislation they authored. That law is on the books today.
The Future
The trajectory of Colorado’s landlord-tenant law does not inspire optimism. Democrats have held a complete trifecta (Governor, Senate, and House) in Colorado since 2019, with the party winning consistent majorities in the state House since 2013 and holding the governorship for 24 of the past 32 years. This means Democrats can continue to do what they want, including the enactment of more draconian landlord-tenant laws. We’re already seeing these intentions in political advertisements. Landlords are an easy scapegoat, since they’re allegedly greedy and rich. Things would change if just one part of the trifecta were flipped, but that’s not likely: the opposition in Colorado is about as popular as the Maytag® repairman.
Governor Polis is the most significant part of the Democratic trifecta. He made two fortunes before entering politics, a genuine achievement and a testament to the opportunities the free market offers. Which makes it all the more puzzling that he has joined the Legislature in systematically dismantling those same opportunities for others. After all, real estate has traditionally been the best way for the common person to build wealth. That’s still true, but not in Colorado. We should encourage entrepreneurs to come here and prosper, rather than chasing them off to Florida and Texas.
I have represented many landlord clients who completed Section 1031 exchanges and reinvested out of state, due to Colorado’s regulatory environment. Others have sold and absorbed the tax consequences in order to get out of the business. They are not alone. If they sell to an owner-occupant, that property disappears from the market. Two of my clients have converted or are converting their apartments into condominiums, for the same reason, removing multiple rental units at once. A handful of other clients have lost their properties to foreclosure, also for the same reason. So much for rich landlords. Those properties deteriorate. They become uninhabitable and a safe haven for drug dealers and prostitution. In the future, more and more low-income, well-intentioned tenants will be chasing fewer and fewer habitable rental properties. Colorado’s landlord-tenant laws will continue to hurt the very people to whom our politicians pay lip service. Regardless of how draconian our landlord-tenant laws become, neither state government nor judges can force landlords to spend money that they don’t have.
If you are looking for accountability, look up the sponsors of the legislation described in this article. Most of them haven’t owned rental property and will likely have moved on before you can hold them responsible.
Most rental real estate is owned by older people. What will happen when they are no longer around? Will young people want to take over the reins, knowing that they could wait three months to collect rent while paying extremely expensive bills? I would not bet on it.
Conclusion
Landlording is an essential business. You either own your place, rent your place, or live with someone who does one or the other. If our elected officials are serious about promoting affordable housing and not just invoking it as a campaign slogan, they should realize that landlords are people, too. Squeeze them hard enough, and they leave the market. They sell. They let their properties decline. The units disappear. The tenants who needed them are left with fewer choices and higher prices. But if Colorado's leaders create conditions where responsible property owners can prosper, those landlords will stay, invest, and provide the housing that working families need. The math is not complicated. The political will to follow it is the only thing missing.
John Finger is a solo practitioner with thirty years of eviction experience. He practices various areas of real estate law. Thanks to Scott Wolfson, Esq., who provided valuable input for this article.
Endnotes
Colorado Lawyer, March 2026
CRS § 38-12-105(c).
CRS § 38-12-701.
CRS § 38-12-702, 38-12-204,
CRS § 38-12-701. Applies to oral leases.
CRS § 38-12-105.
Ibid.
Id.
CRS § 13-40-115(4)(b).
CRS § 38-12-701.
CRS § 13-40-104, 106.
CRS § 13-40-107.5.
CRS § 13-40-104 (1)(e.5).
CRS § 13-40-104 (1)(d.5).
CRS § 13-40-104 (1)(c).
CRS § 13-40-104(c).
CRS § 13-40-104(e.5)II.
CRS § 13-40-104 (5)(d).
15 U.S.C. § 9058 et seq.
Ibid.
CRS § 13-40-108.
CRS § 13-40-106(1).
CRS § 13-40-106(2).
JDF 102.
CRS § 13-40-111.
CRS § 13-40-112.
CRCP 304.
CRS § 13-40-113(1).
CRS § 13-40-113, CRCP 316.5(b).
CRS § 13-40-111.
CRS § 13-40-115.
JDF 205, CRS 13-16-103, C.J.D. 98-01.
CRS § 13-40-204(d).
CRS § 13-40-115(4)(b).
CRS § 38-12-503 et seq; CRS §38-12-1002 et seq.
CRS § 38-12-507.
CRS § 38-12-1002(2)(a).
CRS § 38-40-111.
CRS § 38-12-507.
CRS § 13-40-104(4).
15 U.S.C.A. § 9058, Governor Jared Polis executive order D 2020 012, et seq.
CRS § 38-12-507(2)(d)(I).
CRS § 13-40-110.5(2).
CRS § 13-40-110.5(3).
CRS § 13-40-111.
CRS § 13-40-115(2).
CRS § 13-40-122.
CRS §13-40-115(3).
CRS §13-40-123.
December 26, 2025.
https://kosi101.com/why-is-your-property-tax-so-high/.
HB 19-1118.
Did you really think you’d find an endnote here?
CRS §13-40-104(d).
https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Colorado_state_government.
Made you look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis.
https://rentalhousingjournal.com/is-a-landlord-exodus-reshaping-the-rental-housing-market/?utm_source=Master+Investor%2FOwner%2FProp+Mngr%2FSocial&utm_campaign=2fbe2fbd8c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_05_13_12_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-2fbe2fbd8c-165595434
Small landlords are selling their rental properties, a trend called the landlord exodus, which is reshaping the rental housing market
