Teller County Court Decision Against NorthStar

Site Map | Main Page | Contact Us

Woods, et. al. vs NorthStar Design, et. al.

Teller County District Court
Case 00CV127
decided November 2, 2004
Judge Thomas L. Kennedy presiding

In her bankruptcy response to the adversarial filing, Barbara Robbins stated, the judge "specifically said there was no fraud, and no lack of fiduciary duty."
The Court in Wells et. al. found:
"The Court would begin by noting that every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Clearly in this case (Barbara) Robbins breached that covenant as to every Plaintiff". (emphasis added)
The Court in Wells also stated:
"While the Court would agree in some cases unforeseen events arise during construction over which no one has control, such events should be the exception and not the norm as appears to have happened in these cases." (emphasis added)
The Court then stated:
"The documents prepared by the Defendants (Barbara Robbins) are nearly incomprehensible; the numbers vary from one to the next; and draw requests can not be easily matched with the original contract. For those reasons, the Court finds that Barbara Robbins breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with all Plaintiffs". (emphasis added)
It certainly sounds like the Court said she failed in her fiduciary duty to her clients while she is insisting otherwise. The Court basically called her consistently dishonest.
Barbara Robbins has lost every court case we can locate.

Rebuttals
Karen and Mike are willing to give someone the opportunity to rebut anything said on this web site about them.
We will post that rebuttal, provided it is in good taste, sent it is to us in a format that can be copied, and it addresses the issues. We will not alter the rebuttal unless the content forces us to do so. Karen & Mike are the only ones responsible for the content of this web site. For those who really, really don't like what we say here, consider reading Paragraph I of the Colorado Court of Appeals decision concerning this web site, where the Court stated:
"...the website constitutes protected speech or press under the First Amendment."