Background
Tobiah Peter Fernsler rented a home from Lisa and Michael Holmquest. After disputes over the property’s condition, rent payments, and repairs, the Holmquests sought to end the tenancy. Fernsler filed a 2024 district-court action alleging, among other claims, breach of the warranty of habitability and retaliation. That case was dismissed without prejudice, with permission to refile if he could cure pleading defects.
While that case was pending, the Holmquests filed a later eviction action in county court. Fernsler asserted habitability and retaliation as affirmative defenses and tried to add damages counterclaims based on those theories, but the county court struck the amended answer on procedural grounds. After trial, the county court entered a possession judgment for the Holmquests. Fernsler then brought this 2025 action seeking damages for habitability and retaliation; the district court dismissed it as claim-precluded.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed. The district court could take judicial notice of the related court records without converting the dismissal motion into one for summary judgment because it relied on pleadings and the final eviction order only to evaluate claim preclusion, not to accept disputed facts as true.
But claim preclusion did not apply. The damages counterclaims in the eviction action were stricken and therefore were never adjudicated; nor were they compulsory because the same claims were pending in the 2024 action when the eviction case began. Fernsler’s use of habitability and retaliation solely as defenses to possession also did not bar a later damages action on those theories. The 2024 dismissal likewise could not support preclusion because it was without prejudice and was not a final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Stricken counterclaims do not support claim preclusion because they were not finally adjudicated.
- Defending an eviction on habitability or retaliation grounds does not itself bar a later affirmative damages claim.
- A dismissal without prejudice that permits refiling is not final enough to trigger claim preclusion.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes possession-focused eviction litigation from a tenant’s separate claim for damages. Landlords cannot rely solely on a tenant’s unsuccessful defensive theories in an eviction case to establish that the tenant has already litigated affirmative claims for relief.
The case also confirms that courts may examine limited records from related proceedings at the pleading stage when assessing preclusion, while preserving the limits on judicial notice of disputed adjudicative facts.