2026-09-10 · Colorado · Courts

A federal court in Colorado has sent a unit owner's entire lawsuit against his condominium association into mandatory arbitration under the declaration — and in the same order warned the association that refusing to participate in good faith could cost it the right it just won. The order in Hauman v. Highland Bridge Lofts Homeowners Association, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-03720-PAB-NRN, was entered August 3, 2026, accepting a magistrate judge's July 17 recommendation in full.¹

The case is stayed, not resolved. Nothing here predicts its outcome.

What the declaration's ADR article swept in

Article 20 of the Highland Bridge Lofts declaration provides that owners and the association “covenant[] and agree[] to submit all Claims each may have to the procedures set forth in this Article 20 and not to a court of law.” Its definition of “Claim” reaches disputes about “the Property” or “the Condominium Unit”; “[t]he interpretation, application or enforcement of this Declaration”; “[a]ny rights, obligations and duties of any Party under this Declaration”; and “[a]ny personal injury or property damage that any Owner alleges to have sustained on the Property.”

On that language the court found substantially the whole of a multi-count suit arbitrable: balcony-maintenance failure, hallway surveillance, notice failures, and $17,000 in fines. Even the federal and state discrimination claims “arguably relate to aspects of the ‘Property’ and his ‘Unit.’”

The dispute, as pleaded

Ian Hauman owns a unit at 1555 Central Street in Denver. His amended complaint alleges that the association failed to maintain and replace portions of a balcony, letting moisture into his unit; that when he demanded accountability it reported him to Denver police, allegedly falsely claiming he had threatened residents; that it installed a surveillance camera in the interior hallway outside his unit; that it placed a stop-mail order on his address so he would not receive notice of rule changes or fines; that it levied seventeen $1,000 fines for “tampering” after he taped paper over the camera and tried to withdraw $17,000 from his bank account without consent; and that it threatened foreclosure on fines it knew could not support one.

He states that he is autistic and requested accommodations, including attending meetings by proxy and removal of the hallway cameras for sensory reasons, and that the association refused them and refused the interactive process. His claims include breach of contract, negligence, CCIOA violations, breach of fiduciary duty, continuing trespass, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, invasion of privacy, outrageous conduct, and claims under the Fair Housing Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. These are allegations, not findings.

1. Hauman v. Highland Bridge Lofts HOA, No. 1:25-cv-03720-PAB-NRN (D. Colo. July 17, 2026) — Recommendation on motion to stay and compel arbitration (source of the quoted declaration and 9 U.S.C. § 3 analysis) ↩
2. Same case, Order Accepting Recommendation (Aug. 3, 2026) ↩
3. Same case, Order denying motion to remand (May 13, 2026) ↩
4. HB26-1236, "Arbitration Reform" — bill page showing the June 2, 2026 veto, Colorado General Assembly ↩