DCW Updates
DCW Monthly: August 2025
From courtrooms in Illinois to conference halls in Singapore, this issue unpacks the rulings, risks, and rule debates in today’
DCW Litigation Digest
Tracy v. Surofchek [2025]
Appeal of denied bill of costs obtaining supersedeas LC.
💡
Tracy v. Surofchek
No. 24-CA-1058, slip op. (Colo. App. Feb. 20, 2025) [USA]
Type of Lawsuit: Appeal of denied bill of costs obtaining supersedeas LC.
Topics: Abuse of Process; Breach of Contract; Statutory Interpretation; Supersedeas Bond
Parties:
• Plaintiffs/Appellants/Applicants/Judgment Debtors – George and Amy Tracy
• Defendants/Respondents/Judgment Creditors – David and Amy Surofchek
Underlying Action: Property dispute between residential neighbors.
LCs: Multiple supersedeas credits; no practice rules or choice of law mentioned.
Decision: The Court of Appeals of Colorado, Brown, Yun and Jones, JJ., reversed and remanded.
Rationale: Trial court erred as a matter of law that costs in obtaining supersedeas letters of credit were not recoverable by judgment debtor under Colorado procedural rules following partial reversal of decision on appeal; reasonableness of costs are a matter for trial court.
No. 24-CA-1058, slip op. (Colo. App. Feb. 20, 2025) [USA]
Type of Lawsuit: Appeal of denied bill of costs obtaining supersedeas LC.
Topics: Abuse of Process; Breach of Contract; Statutory Interpretation; Supersedeas Bond
Parties:
• Plaintiffs/Appellants/Applicants/Judgment Debtors – George and Amy Tracy
• Defendants/Respondents/Judgment Creditors – David and Amy Surofchek
Underlying Action: Property dispute between residential neighbors.
LCs: Multiple supersedeas credits; no practice rules or choice of law mentioned.
Decision: The Court of Appeals of Colorado, Brown, Yun and Jones, JJ., reversed and remanded.
Rationale: Trial court erred as a matter of law that costs in obtaining supersedeas letters of credit were not recoverable by judgment debtor under Colorado procedural rules following partial reversal of decision on appeal; reasonableness of costs are a matter for trial court.
Factual Summary:
When purchasing a home next to George and Amy Tracy (Plaintiffs), David and Amy Surofchek (Defendants) began renovating a bordering fence. A dispute arose concerning ownership over a corner of the property where the fence ran. This dispute which allegedly witnessed “unneighborly behavior” caused Defendants to pay Plaintiffs USD 15,000 in exchange for a quitclaim deed and settlement regarding the property. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs sued Defendants for claims of trespass, conversion, destruction of property and violation of relevant homeowners’ association covenants. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of the settlement agreement and abuse of process.