State ex rel. Coffman v. Castle Law Group, LLC

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court held that disclosure of a price does not automatically insulate a party from a deceptive-trade-practice claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The court ruled that evidence of market rates charged by unaffiliated vendors was directly relevant to whether foreclosure-related costs invoiced by the defendants were actual or reasonable. It therefore made the rule absolute and remanded after reversing the trial court’s exclusion of market-rate testimony.

Holdings

1. Disclosure of a price charged does not automatically insulate a party from a CCPA claim alleging that the price itself is deceptive. An accurately disclosed price may still be deceptive when the defendant falsely represents that the price is an actual, necessary, and reasonable cost.
2. Evidence of market rates charged by unaffiliated vendors for comparable foreclosure-related services is directly relevant to whether the defendants' invoiced costs were actual or reasonable costs and may also inform the State's disgorgement calculations.
3. The Supreme Court properly exercised original jurisdiction because the State lacked another adequate remedy and the pretrial orders substantially disadvantaged the State in litigating its CCPA claim shortly before trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether disclosure of the price charged for foreclosure-related services automatically insulates the defendants from a Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim alleging that the disclosed price itself was deceptive.
2. Whether evidence of market rates charged by unaffiliated vendors for comparable foreclosure-related services is relevant to the State's CCPA claim and disgorgement calculations.
3. Whether the Colorado Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 to review the district court's pretrial evidentiary orders.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded