Elk Creek Ranch Owners Ass’n v. Elk Creek Ranch Development, Inc.
2026 COA 58. No. 25CA0943. Court of Appeals Jurisdiction—Final Appealable Order—Attorney Fees—Multiple Parties.
July 9, 2026
Wheeler and his company Elk Creek Ranch Development, Inc. (ECRD) established Elk Creek Ranch, a private hunting and fishing community. Each lot owner in Elk Creek Ranch was a member of the Elk Creek Ranch Owners Association (association). Wheeler formed Elk Creek Operations, LLC (ECO) to serve as the association’s management company. Wheeler and his family also established YZ Ranch, LLC, and YZ Ranch and ECO later entered into a long-term fishing lease granting association members the right to fish on YZ Ranch property. Several individual association members subsequently sued Wheeler, ECRD, ECO, and YZ Ranch, asserting various claims concerning assessments, management, and association members’ access to fishing. The association later joined the lawsuit, the individual members withdrew, and the association was the only plaintiff by the time of trial. The district court dismissed the association’s claim against ECRD on statute of limitations grounds at the close of evidence. As relevant here, on August 20, 2024, the district court determined that (1) the association was entitled to recover fees and costs from ECO, (2) ECRD was entitled to recover fees and costs from the association, and (3) the association was not entitled to recover fees and costs from YZ Ranch. On April 4, 2025, the district court ordered the association to pay ECRD $1,261,649.10 in attorney fees. The association appealed, and ECRD and YZ Ranch (collectively, defendants) cross-appealed. Defendants’ cross-appeal was later dismissed for failure to prosecute.
As an initial matter, defendants argued that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the August 2024 order denying the association’s request for an award of attorney fees and costs against YZ Ranch. They contended that because that order fully resolved this action as it relates to YZ Ranch, it constituted a final, appealable post-judgment order, making the association’s notice of appeal, which was filed nine months later, untimely. An order granting attorney fees is not final until the district court sets the amount of fees. The court concluded that post-judgment fee proceedings are not final for purposes of appeal until the district court has resolved all outstanding issues concerning all parties’ fee requests. Here, the district court’s order denying the association’s request for attorney fees and costs against YZ Ranch was not final and appealable until the district court had resolved all parties’ fee requests. Accordingly, the association’s notice of appeal filed on May 21, 2025 (less than 49 days after the court’s April 4, 2025, order) was timely, so the court had jurisdiction over the appeal.
On the merits, the association contended that the district court erred by determining that it could not recover attorney fees and costs from YZ Ranch under the fishing lease. The association asserted that it was entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs because the jury’s finding that YZ Ranch breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing constituted a default in the performance of the fishing lease. Here, the district court misinterpreted the contractual fee-shifting provision by equating an undefined reference to “default” with a specifically defined lease term. It thus improperly restricted the association’s right to recover fees. The court held that a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing constitutes a “default” under the fee-shifting clause, entitling the association to reasonable attorney fees and costs from YZ Ranch.
The association also asserted that the district court erred by awarding $1,261,649.10 in attorney fees to ECRD. Here, the court calculated the lodestar amount using an unreasonable number of hours and then applied a percentage reduction for excessive, unnecessary, or overstaffed work. The court held that this approach is inconsistent with established law, which requires excluding unreasonable hours before calculating the lodestar. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to ECRD.
The orders were reversed and the case was remanded with directions.