Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT

REJECTS THE INTERTWINING DOCTRINE

The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the intertwining doctrine by
ruling that both arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims pertaining to an
identical set of facts may proceed separately to arbitration and to court.1
Chris and Cindy Ingold signed a one year lease agreement with Boulder
Creek Apartments (Boulder Creek) in July 2001. The lease contained an
arbitration clause which required arbitration of any disputes arising from the
lease agreement. Shortly after moving into Boulder Creek, a sewer pipe
ruptured under the Ingolds’ apartment causing a foul odor to make its way
into the unit. Boulder Creek promised the couple the sewage issues would
be resolved. The Ingolds, relying on these representations, renewed their
lease in August 2002 for a one-year term.

A few months later, as a residual effect of sewage being left underneath
their unit, the Ingolds began experiencing health problems attributable to the
presence of toxic levels of mold and bacteria in their apartment. The
Ingolds eventually abandoned their apartment in November 2002 and ceased
payment of rent. Boulder Creek denied any environmental problems with
the apartment, and insisted the Ingolds were responsible for continued rent
payments. Boulder Creek demanded (U.S.) $6,095.55 from the Ingolds as a
termination fee, and claimed that their failure to pay rent resulted in a breach
of the lease. Boulder Creek also withheld the Ingold’s security deposit.

In October 2004 the Ingolds filed suit against the defendants advancing
eight tort claims, as well as a claim for violation of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act (CCPA), and a claim for violation of the state Wrongful
Withholding of Security Deposits Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint, arguing the arbitration agreement in the lease signed by both
parties required arbitration of all the Ingold’s complaints. The trial court
granted the defendants’ motion.