Arnold & Arnold, LLP Attorneys at Law - construction

Contact Us

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Free Initial Consultation Call 720-962-6010 Free Initial Consultation Call 720-962-6010
Subscribe to This Blog's Feed


Arnold & Arnold, LLP
Attorneys at Law
7691 Shaffer Parkway, Suite A
Littleton, CO 80127
Phone: 720-962-6010
Fax: 720-962-6011
Map and Directions

Visit Our Blog

Supreme Court Pro Bono Achievement 2011

Supreme Court Pro Bono Achievement 2012
FindLaw Network

October 2012 Archives



Small claims court can be useful when the amount in controversy is $7,500 or less. It is a quick process that avoids attorney's fees and the delays of typical litigation. There are some excellent self-help resources at the websites below if you decide to embark on the process or if you find yourself involuntarily involved.

Construction Work on Federally-Owned Projects

CONSTRUCTION WORK ON FEDERALLY-OWNED PROJECTS - Summary of Payment Remedy under the Miller Act 

Miller Act Remedies. On federally-owned construction projects, Miller Act bonds are usually required to be filed with the Contracting department of the government. Procedures under the Miller Act require that the claimant who DOES NOT have a direct contract with the contractor who furnished the bond, give written notice to the prime contractor by certified or registered mail within ninety (90) days from the date that labor, materials or equipment were last furnished. The right to recover under the Miller Act is lost if the required notice is not given. It should be noted that other jurisdictions have expressly ruled that giving written notice "requires receipt of the notice by the contractor." This means that the notice should be received by the contractor prior to the ninety days, regardless of whether it was sent by registered mail or not. This issue has not been ruled on in Colorado or in the 10th Circuit, but it is good practice to follow this rule. See, Pepper Burns Insulation, Inc. v. Artco Corp., 970 F.2d 1340, 1343 (C.A.4 (N.C.),1992); U.S. for Use and Ben. of B & R, Inc. v. Donald Lane Const., 19 F.Supp.2d 217, 226 (D.Del.,1998). Only those who have not contracted directly with the contractor providing the bond need give the Miller Act notice. Interest can also be recovered on the bond from the contractor and surety. U.S. for the Use of C.J.C., Inc. v. Western States Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 834 F.2d 1533 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Finding Assets after Judgment - Disclosure Hearings

Finding Assets- Disclosure Hearings

Rule 69, C.R.C.P. provides for Execution and Proceedings Subsequent to Judgment. The Rule allows a creditor to either serve written interrogatories on the judgment debtor, who must be personally served under Rule 45, CR.C.P., or serve a subpoena on the judgment debtor to appear in Court to answer questions concerning property. You can serve a subpoena duces tecum and require the judgment debtor to bring documents with him, so you can verify the answers. County Court allows Interrogatories to be served under Rule 369, C.R.C.C.P., but does not provide for subpoenas.