DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,

STATE OF COLORADO
Court Address: DATE FILED: December 28, 2018 12:12 PM
1437 Bannock St. FILING ID: B0E78304BC6E6
CASE NUMBER: 2018CV34599
Denver, CO 80202
Plaintiff:

PINEAPPLE COMPANY, CORP., a Bahamas

corporation

vs.

GUIMEL BUSINESS LTD., and MARISE CIPRIANI,  COURT USE ONLY 

Defendants:

Case Number: 18CV34599

Attorneys for Intervenor Granby Realty Holding, LLC
Donald D. Allen, No. 10340 Division: 275 Courtroom:
James T. Markus, No. 25065
MARKUS WILLIAMS & YOUNG LLC
1700 Lincoln, Suite 4550
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone:(303) 830-0800
Telefax:(303) 830-0809
Email:dallen@markuswilliams.com
jmarkus@markuswilliams.com

INTERVENOR GRANBY REALTY HOLDINGS LLC’S SUPPLEMENT TO

MOTION TO DISSOLVE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AS TO PROPERTY OWNED
BY GRANBY REALTY HOLDING’S LLC

Intervenor Granby Realty Holdings LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“GR

Holdings”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files its Supplement to Motion to

Dissolve Writ of Attachment as to Property Owned by Granby Realty Holdings LLC (this

“Supplement”). The purpose of this Supplement is to challenge the sufficiency of the bond

posted by Plaintiff Pineapple Company, Corp. (“Pineapple”). In support hereof, GR Holdings

states as follows:

{Z0252185/3 }
 I. BACKGROUND

1. On December 13, 2018, the Court entered its Writ of Attachment (the “Writ”).

2. The Writ provides that “In its discretion, having considered the submissions of

Plaintiff, the Court determines that Plaintiff shall post a bond in the amount of $10,000.00.” The

Writ at 2.

3. On December 21, 2018, GR Holdings filed its Traverse and Motion to Dissolve

Writ of Attachment as to Property Owned by Granby Realty Holding’s LLC (the “Motion”). In

the Motion, GR Holdings asked the Court “to vacate, dissolve, and or discharge the Writ of

Attachment as to the fifteen properties listed on page 3 of the Writ showing Granby Holdings

LLC listed as the ‘Record Owner’ and all of the properties listed on pages 4 through 19 of the

Writ of Attachment, each of which are listed with Granby Realty Holdings LLC as the ‘Record

Owner’” (collectively, “the Properties”). The Motion at 6–7. The Court, in its order dated

December 21, 2018, granted GR Holdings’ Motion to Intervene, set the Motion for hearing, and

noted that “the issue of the disposition of the bond will remain for resolution following the

hearing on” the Motion.

4. On December 21, 2018, GR Holdings also filed its counterclaim against

Pineapple, in which it sought discharge of the attachment as wrongful and damages sustained as

a result of the wrongful attachment under C.R.C.P. 102(n)(2) and (p).

5. As stated more fully in the Motion and the Affidavit attached thereto, GR

Holdings is the sole owner of the Properties, which are located in Grand County, Colorado,

known as Granby Ranch.

6. The Properties currently secure a debt in excess of $50,000,000 in favor of a third

party lender. In particular, they are subject to 2012 deed of trust in favor of Granby Prentice,

{Z0252185/3 }
2
LLC, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The deed of trust secures the payment of a

promissory note in the principle amount of $55,840,00.00. Exhibit A at 1. As shown on Exhibit

B, Redwood Capital Finance Company, LLC assigned the deed of trust to Granby Prentice, LLC

on April 15, 2016. Exhibit B at 1. Finally, Exhibit C is the original deed of trust, which is still

of record along with the 2012 deed of trust.

7. A transaction is currently pending which will lead to the resolution of this

independent secured claim.

8. GR Holdings files this Supplement to challenge the sufficiency of the $10,000

bond amount. Given the value of the Properties, the pending transaction, and that nothing shows

that Pineapple could pay wrongful attachment damages, the Court should increase the bond

requirement under C.R.C.P. 102(d) to $40 million.

II. AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT

9. The Writ was issued pursuant to C.R.C.P. 102, which provides that

Before the issuance of a writ of attachment the plaintiff shall furnish a bond that
complies with the requirements of C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-23, in an amount set by the
court in its discretion, not exceeding double the amount claimed, to the effect that
if the defendant recover judgment, or if the court shall finally decide that the
plaintiff was not entitled to an attachment, the plaintiff will pay all costs that may
be awarded to the defendant, and all damages defendant may sustain by reason of
the wrongful suing out of the attachment. The defendant may require the sureties
to satisfy the court that each, for himself, is worth the amount for which he has
become surety over and above his just debts and liabilities, in property located in
this state and not by law exempt from execution.

C.R.C.P 102(d).

10. “[T]he requirement of the bond to insure against costs and damages to the

defendant . . . are significant procedural safeguards for the defendant.” Bernhardt v. Commodity

Option Co., 187 Colo. 89, 93, 528 P.2d 919, 922 (1974). “[A] writ of attachment under Colo. R.

{Z0252185/3 }
3
Civ. P. 102 cannot issue without payment of a bond.” Conry v. Baker, Civil Action No. 14-cv-

02672-CMA-KLM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98311, at *7 (D. Colo. July 28, 2015).

11. “C.R.C.P. 102(d) . . . (like C.R.C.P. 121 § 1-23, which it references) gives the

court discretion to set the amount of the bond. Rule 102(d) limits that discretion by setting a

maximum amount for the bond (‘not exceeding double the amount claimed’), but it does not set a

minimum amount.” Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. v. Kornegay, 2012 COA 140, ¶ 26, 292

P.3d 1111, 1117–18.

12. Where the grounds for attachment are “compelling” and the undisputed facts

show that plaintiff “could satisfy any award of damages or costs,” however, a nominal or even

zero bond amount may be required.” Kornegay, 2012 COA 140, ¶ 27, 292 P.3d at 1118.

13. The Rule itself provides guidance for the bond amount insofar as it sets out the

purpose of the bond requirement: “if the defendant recover judgment, or if the court shall finally

decide that the plaintiff was not entitled to an attachment, the plaintiff will pay all costs that may

be awarded to the defendant, and all damages defendant may sustain by reason of the wrongful

suing out of the attachment.” See C.R.C.P 102(d). Thus, where the property is wrongfully

attached, the bond will go to pay the damages that plaintiff’s wrongful attachment caused

defendant. See Kornegay, 2012 COA 140, ¶ 27, 292 P.3d at 1118.

14. Here, GR Holdings has filed a counterclaim against Pineapple seeking

dissolution of the Writ and damages for wrongful attachment. In the Motion, GR Holdings sets

out why the writ is wrongful: GR Holdings is not a defendant and does not owe the debt on

which Pineapple brings this suit. Accordingly, the Writ is wrongful and should be vacated.

15. If, however, the Court decides that the Writ should remain in place, GR Holdings

requests that the Court enter an order increasing the bond amount to $40 million. The $10,000

{Z0252185/3 }
4
bond currently required is insufficient to fulfill the purpose of the bond requirement and act as a

“significant procedural safeguard.” See Bernhardt, 187 Colo. at 93, 528 P.2d at 922. As set out

in the Motion, the grounds for attachment are weak because GR Holdings is not a Defendant and

does not owe the debt at issue. Further, Pineapple seeks judgment of well over $20 million, and

the property at issue is subject to a deed of trust for $55 million. Continued attachment of the

Properties threatens the pending transaction that would resolve this secured claim and portends

substantial damages to GR Holdings for which Plaintiff would be liable under C.R.C.P 102 if the

writ were to remain in place and the pending sale transaction were to fall through as a result of

the writ. Finally, there is nothing to show that Pineapple would be able to satisfy such an award

if the attachment is found to be wrongful. Thus, the circumstances warrant increasing the bond.

16. In short, the writ attached real property that secures a $55 million deed of trust—

despite GR Holdings indisputably not owing the debt at issue—based on an unalleged and

unsupported veil-piercing allegation, and now threatens a pending transaction to resolve that

third-party interest. All this with the nominal procedural safeguard of a $10,000 bond. This

nominal bond is insufficient and that this case warrants a “significant procedural safeguard” and

the maximum bond allowed.

17. The complaint in this case states that Defendant Guimel confessed to a debt of

$19,255,293.70 and seeks judgment of “an amount that will compensate it for damages,

including principle amount and the late fees agreed upon in the parties’ contract, plus pre- and

post- judgment interest, costs and all other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.” The

Complaint at 3. Thus, the maximum bond required under C.R.C.P. 102(d) would be double this

amount. GR Holdings submits that a $40 million bond is warranted under C.R.C.P. 102(d).

{Z0252185/3 }
5
 WHEREFORE, Proposed intervenor GR Holdings LLC respectfully requests that, if the

Court does not vacate, dissolve and/or discharge the Writ of Attachment, it require Pineapple to

post a bond of $40 million under C.R.C.P. 102(d).

Dated this 28th day of December, 2018.

MARKUS WILLIAMS & YOUNG, LLC

s/ Donald D. Allen
Donald D. Allen, Reg. No. 10340
James T. Markus, Reg. No. 25065

Attorneys for intervenor Granby Realty Holdings

LLC.

{Z0252185/3 }
6
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 28th day of December, 2018, a copy of the foregoing

INTERVENOR GRANBY REALTY HOLDINGS LLC’S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION

TO DISSOLVE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AS TO PROPERTY OWNED BY GRANBY

REALTY HOLDING’S LLC was e-filed and served via ICCES on the following:

J. Lucas McFarland
Cyd Hunt
Evans & McFarland, LLC

Email: lmcfarland@emlawyers.com
Email: chunt@emlawyers.com

/s/ Serina R. Schaefer

Serina R. Schaefer, Legal Assistant for
Markus Williams & Young, LLC

{Z0252185/3 }
7