Legal Opinion · Dissent

Francam Building Corp. v. Fail

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided May 24, 1982No. 80SC281Published

1DissentLohr, Justice

I respectfully dissent. My review of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Statute, section 13-40-101 et seq., and its apparent legislative purpose, convinces me that the notice provision of section 13-40-104(l)(d), C.R.S. 1973 is not subject to contractual waiver. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The apparent purpose of our Forcible Entry and Detainer Statute and, more particularly, section 13-40-104, C.R.S. 1973, is to provide the landlord with a summary procedure for recovering possession of his property. See R. Schoshinski, American Law of Landlord and Tenant § 6:10…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Tumbarello v. ByersColorado Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Beck v. GiordanoSupreme Court of Colorado · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API