Marriage of Sunderland

24CA0223 Marriage of Sunderland 02-13-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA0223
Jefferson County District Court No. 22DR30340
Honorable Christopher B. Rhamey, Judge

In re the Marriage of

Sandra Sunderland,

Appellant,

and

Stuart Sunderland,

Appellee,

and Concerning Chris Basler and Basler Family Law, PLLC,

Attorney-Appellee.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division VII
Opinion by JUDGE JOHNSON
Lipinsky and Moultrie, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced February 13, 2025

Sandra Sunderland, Pro Se

Ciancio Ciancio Brown, P.C., Marc J. Kaplan, Banafsheh Lari, Denver,
Colorado for Appellee

Basler Family Law, PLLC, Chris R. Basler, Centennial, Colorado, for Attorney-
Appellee
¶1 In this dissolution of marriage proceeding involving Sandra

Sunderland (wife) and Stuart Sunderland (husband), wife appeals

(1) the district court’s order entering a money judgment against her

on an attorney’s lien and (2) the allocation of that debt to her as

part of the marital property division. We conclude that wife invited

any error and, therefore, we affirm.

I. Background

¶2 In 2022, wife petitioned to dissolve the parties’ marriage. In

January 2023, Chris Basler (Basler) of Basler Family Law, PLLC

(the law firm) entered an appearance on behalf of wife. Five months

later, the law firm simultaneously filed a notice of attorney’s lien

and a forthwith motion to reduce the attorney’s lien to judgment.

In the motion, the law firm sought entry of a judgment in the

amount of $17,906.81 against wife for unpaid attorney fees and

costs owed to it. Shortly thereafter, Basler and another attorney at

the law firm withdrew as wife’s attorneys, and new counsel entered

an appearance on behalf of wife.

1
¶3 Asserting that the law firm had failed to provide any

documentary support for the amounts that it claimed in the notice

of attorney’s lien, wife filed a verified response in opposition to the

law firm’s motion. A district court magistrate later entered

temporary orders stating that the law firm’s motion for entry of

judgment on the attorney’s lien would be addressed at the

permanent orders hearing.

¶4 At the permanent orders hearing, wife did not further dispute

the attorney fees and costs that the law firm claimed. Following

that hearing, the district court entered an order granting the law

firm’s motion and entering judgment against wife in the amount of

$17,906.81. In the written permanent orders, the district court

allocated to wife the debt associated with the $17,906.81 judgment.

II. Standard of Review

¶5 “The doctrine of invited error precludes a party from appealing

an error that the party invited or injected into the case.” In re

Marriage of O'Connor, 2023 COA 35, ¶ 24. “A party’s affirmative

action during litigation triggers this doctrine and usually bars

2
appellate review of alleged error arising from such action.” Vista

Resorts, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 117 P.3d 60, 65 (Colo.

App. 2004); see also People v. Garcia, 2018 COA 180, ¶ 7

(recognizing that the doctrine is “limited to situations where an

error was caused by a party’s affirmative, strategic conduct and not

by a party’s inaction or inadvertence”).

III. Analysis

¶6 As best as we can discern, wife contends that the district court

erred by (1) entering judgment against her on the attorney’s lien

and (2) allocating the debt associated with the judgment to her as

part of the marital property division. We disagree.

¶7 Under section 13-93-114, C.R.S. 2024, an attorney may assert

a lien for the amount of any judgment obtained against a client in

the amount of the attorney’s unpaid reasonable fees and costs. In

re Marriage of Berkland, 762 P.2d 779, 782 (Colo. App. 1988);

Kallsen v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 761 P.2d 291, 292 (Colo.

App. 1988). But the mere filing of an attorney’s lien does not entitle

the attorney to collect against the property of the client; the lien

3
must first be reduced to a judgment. People v. Gray, 35 P.3d 611,

620 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2001); In re Marriage of Mitchell, 55 P.3d 183,

184-85 (Colo. App. 2002). A lien may be enforced and reduced to a

judgment in a “proper civil action,” § 13-93-114, which “has been

held to include . . . filing a motion to reduce the lien to judgment in

the civil action that gave rise to the lien claim,” Mitchell, 55 P.3d at

185. See also Seitz v. Seitz, 516 P.2d 654, 655 (Colo. App. 1973)

(recognizing that the district court must determine whether an

attorney’s lien is valid and whether fees are owed to counsel).

¶8 Wife contends that the district court erred by entering

judgment against her because the law firm never provided any

evidence in support of the amount of attorney fees and costs that it

claimed, and because Basler allegedly violated his professional

duties. But we conclude that wife invited any error.

¶9 As noted above, the temporary orders indicated that the law

firm’s request for entry of judgment on its attorney’s lien would be

addressed at the permanent orders hearing. But at that hearing,

wife confirmed under her own attorney’s questioning that she owed

4
unpaid attorney fees and costs to the law firm and that the amount

that she owed was reflected in the notice of attorney’s lien. And

when her attorney asked her why she had not paid the law firm,

wife did not express any disagreement with the amount of the

attorney’s lien. Instead, she testified, “I wasn’t receiving

maintenance and I didn’t have any money to pay [it], and I didn’t

have any additional credit cards at that time.”

¶ 10 Even assuming the court erred, on this record, we conclude

that wife invited any such error by affirmatively testifying that she

owed the law firm the amounts reflected in the notice of attorney’s

lien. Cf. Horton v. Suthers, 43 P.3d 611, 619 n. 10 (Colo. 2002)

(recognizing that invited error merely mandates that the claim of

error cannot be considered but does not suggest that actual error

occurred). Accordingly, we will not consider wife’s contentions of

error as to the entry of judgment on the attorney lien.

¶ 11 Finally, we reject any challenge by wife to the allocation of the

$17,906.81 judgment in the marital property division. Wife has

conceded that any error in allocating that debt to her was harmless

5
given the substantial value of the marital estate. See In re Marriage

of Zappanti, 80 P.3d 889, 893 (Colo. App. 2003) (recognizing that

“[a]n error affecting only a small percentage of the overall marital

estate is harmless” and does not justify reversing the court’s

judgment).1

IV. Conclusion

¶ 12 The order entering judgment against wife on the law firm’s

attorney’s lien is affirmed. The allocation of that judgment to wife

in the permanent orders is affirmed. Those portions of the

permanent orders not challenged on appeal remain undisturbed.

JUDGE LIPINSKY and JUDGE MOULTRIE concur.

1 Chris Basler, on behalf of the law firm, was added to the caption

of this appeal, as it is the law firm’s lien that the court reduced to a
judgment. Basler asked, on behalf of the law firm, for an extension
of time to file a response to wife’s opening brief. We do not need a
response from Basler to resolve this appeal, and given our
disposition, we deny the request as moot.
6