Resident files claim against Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 Homeowners Association

Editor’s note: In a story published by The Aspen Times on Oct. 16, Steve Wiseley was incorrectly identified as a homeowner in Burlingame Ranch Phase 1. He is married to Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 homeowner, Anna Garofalo.

Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 homeowner Anna Garofalo filed a lawsuit against the Burlingame Ranch 1 Condominium Association, Inc. on Oct. 8.

In the lawsuit, Garofalo alleges that the Burlingame Ranch Phase 1 (BG1) Homeowners Association executive board is in violation of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) for not producing records within 10 days of her requests.

---

---

During a Sept. 18 association meeting, Garofolo expressed concerns regarding certain association conduct. She submitted a written request for the production of association records and gave the association 10 days from the date of her request to comply.

During this same meeting, the board voted to only require receipts from Rutledge and Company, which manages the community, if the cost is over $500.

---

---

Below that amount, the company does not need to answer to the board.

Garofolo sent a second request for the production or inspection of association records on Sept. 26. In the request, she again demanded the production of the records within 10 days of the request.

By Sept. 28, all she received was a profit/loss statement for the first six months of 2024, as well as the operating documents for the association.

Because of CCIOA, homeowners association (HOA) members have the right to inspect certain records the association is required to maintain. CCIOA also allows the association to require homeowners to submit a written request describing the records sought at least 10 days prior to inspection.

At the following month’s HOA meeting on Oct. 15, Property Manager Will Rutledge, the board, and homeowners discussed a letter sent out by Garofolo and her husband, Steve Wiseley, in light of an email sent out by BG1 bookkeeper Elizabeth Stewart.

On Oct. 17, the BG1 HOA board sent a statement to homeowners in response to the meeting.

The statement from the board states, “The BG1 HOA Board has chosen to provide the following response to the recent emails and accusations made by our bookkeeper and by Stephen Wiseley pertaining to supposed ‘Property Management Corruption’ and additional issues involved in the Board’s management of the BG1 HOA. They will be addressed below to the extent we are able to do so in light of the pending lawsuit Anna Garofalo has filed against the HOA and related legal issues.”

The board had until Oct. 24 to respond to Garofolo’s complaint; however, Garofolo’s attorney, Chris Bryan of Garfield and Hecht, said “the other side asked for an extension of time.”

“They asked for a 15-day enlargement of time so that they could either try to resolve the case or file an answer,” Bryan said. “They have two weeks from tomorrow to file an answer.”

Bryan noted that it is not uncommon to ask for an enlargement of time, especially when there is a change in lawyers. The BG1 board switched lawyers because when a board is sued by a homeowner, it requires an insurance claim if the board carries insurance. The insurance claim then provides a lawyer for the board.

“The lawyer that they hired out of Denver just got the case, so I’m sure he’s trying to get up to speed,” Bryan said. “So, it’s fairly routine.”

The board did release some contract and financial documents that Garofalo requested, but not all of them. The documents that were produced by the board were heavily redacted; however, Bryan is working to remove the redactions.

“On his invoice it lists several things that (Rutledge’s) paid, but there is no supporting document to go with it,” Wiseley said. “Let’s just say, as an example, if it was a roofing company, there would be no bill from the roofing company. It’s just, ‘I paid the roofing company $3,000. Pay this bill because I’ve already paid it.’ There is no documentation to support the invoice that he’s submitted. There are no backup documents from the companies he is saying he paid.”

In a second claim in the lawsuit, Garofalo alleges that there was a breach of contract with the Condominium Declaration of BG1.

According to the declaration, the HOA is responsible for the “upkeep, repair, and replacement of landscaping, and walls which owner is not required to maintain, signage, irrigation systems, snowmelt systems, solar panels, sidewalks, driveways, and improvements.”

For over a year, Garofolo requested the association repair a fascia board above her front door, which is a part of the roofing element, because it is rotting. In the lawsuit, it states that the association has not taken any steps to repair or replace the fascia board.

“Kind of silly when you pay $500, or close to $500 a month for HOA dues, but they can’t fix a little thing like that,” Wiseley said.

And in a third claim in the lawsuit, Garofalo alleges that according to BG1’s final plans, which were approved by the city of Aspen and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County on Oct. 10, 2005, there are two major public right of ways that run through BG1 at Mining Stock Parkway and Forge Road. 

These contain parallel parking spaces that should be 24 feet long.

The lawsuit states that the only reference on the final plans to the assignment of the parking spaces on Mining Stock Parkway to specific unit owners is with respect to the required handicapped-accessible spaces. There is no reference to private ownership of the remainder of the parking spaces on Mining Stock Parkway.

The HOA board, however, has assigned all parking spaces, including those on the public rights of way, to individual unit owners. The association has also adopted parking rules and regulations, which allow the association to tow, boot, and fine any vehicle deemed in violation.

Homeowners from other communities that Rutledge and Company manages have made similar allegations.

In an April 2024 Letter to the Editor at The Aspen Times, Henry Brightwell said that while helping his daughter and her husband with their move into Burlingame, he “received a warning from Will Rutledge & Co. to move one of our cars or be booted or towed. We moved the car promptly (the following day Easter Sunday). Rutledge chained our other car in a visitors spot directly across from our daughter’s new unit. When contacted, he demanded we Venmo $150 to his personal account or we would be towed.”

“Attempts to explain we had no idea of such parking restrictions were met with arrogance and threats,” the letter states. “Others in the neighborhood have experienced similar treatment and are willing to share their stories. We question the legality of this action but wonder is this how Aspen’s affordable housing authority treats its new customers?”

When asked about the oversight the Aspen-Pitkin County Authority (APCHA) has over HOAs and property managers, the authority stated they had no oversight since HOA board members are appointed by the homeowners and property managers are hired by the board.

Smuggler Park

Leslie Curley, a homeowner at Smuggler Park, which is also under Rutledge and Company’s purview, had a similar experience with parking when her daughter came to visit her from college. Rutledge and the Smuggler HOA board sent her an apology letter.

The letter states, “In interpreting our governing documents, we made a mistake regarding the parking rules … We are genuinely sorry that our actions made you feel bullied, threatened, and unheard.”

Following this letter, which was sent on Feb. 9, 2022, Curley requested her own records from the Smuggler Park HOA on Dec. 13, 2023. She requested statements for Smuggler Park, as well as a certificate of deposit for the account that holds the HOA’s reserve funds for the purpose of monitoring the account.

Her request went unfulfilled. She made another request on Feb. 20, 2024, which also went unfulfilled.

Following an Oct. 16 article in The Aspen Times, Curley reached out to the HOA once again about her records requests. In the third request made on Oct. 16, 2024, she stated she expected the request to be fulfilled by Oct. 26.

In Oct. 16 emails obtained by The Aspen Times, Rutledge told Curley that she declined to pay for the previous records request after compilation. Because of this, payment would be required up front for the new records request made on Oct. 16. Rutledge stated it would take him an hour to fulfill the request and that he would charge $95 to do it. He also asked for a check to be sent to the Smuggler Park HOA at that amount.

“When the check is received and clears deposit, the records delivery will be made,” Rutledge said in the email.

In her response, Curley asked Rutledge to provide her with the communication where she declined to pay for the initial records she requested. He did not do so.

On Oct. 17, Curley asked if she could expedite the records request. Rutledge said that if she put a check on the Smuggler Park HOA president’s door, it would be deposited, and once the check cleared, Rutldge would get everything Curley requested to her.

According to Curley, the check cleared on Oct. 18. Rutledge got the records to Curley on Oct. 24. 

In the email Rutledge said, “This is a courtesy to you at no charge. That does not include any follow up. If you have questions, I suggest you bring them to a Board Meeting. For the CD, this is verbatim from the bank: ‘CDs don’t really have statements in the same way as the accounts do.’ What I have attached is the most recent notice of interest credit. That is all that is available.”

Curley said that she was charged for the records since the check cleared, and the records were incomplete and redacted. She also asked Rutldge for the actual email or copy of the communication from the bank that stated that statements aren’t available to the account holder.

At the time of the publication of this story, Curley had not heard back from Rutledge or the Smuggler Park HOA board.

Rutledge declined comment for this story.

Regan Mertz can be reached at 970-429-9153 or rmertz@aspentimes.com.