In today’s real estate market—defined by rising prices, tightening credit, and limited inventory—alternative transaction models have emerged alongside traditional home sales. One such model is being implemented by Denver-based FulHouse, Inc. (fulhouse.io), which combines elements of real estate transactions with sweepstakes-style entry systems. Under the FulHouse model, consumers have the opportunity to “purchase” a home for as little as five dollars.

FulHouse describes its platform as allowing participants to enter drawings for residential properties. The platform allows homeowners to list a property and set an escrow goal representing the amount they would seek to receive from a traditional sale. Members of the public may then purchase entries into a drawing tied to the property. If the escrow goal is not met, the drawing does not occur, and participants may select from options such as refunds or alternative uses of their payment, including charitable donations. If the goal is met, a winner is selected through a random drawing process, with funds described as being handled through third-party escrow and payment services.

Legal Considerations

Promotional sweepstakes and prize-based contests have long been used in real estate marketing. However, FulHouse’s sweepstakes mechanism appears to function as the core transaction structure rather than as a promotional tool. The legal viability of such a model is questionable and centers mainly on the distinction between a lawful sweepstakes and prohibited gambling.

In most U.S. jurisdictions, including Colorado, gambling is generally defined by three elements: (1) consideration (the risking of money or a thing of value); (2) chance; and (3) the possibility of gain. Sniezek v. Colo. Dept. of Revenue, 113 P.3d 1280, 1282 (Colo. App. 2005). Sweepstakes are typically structured to remove the element of consideration, often by providing a free alternative method of entry.

To enter into a drawing, FulHouse includes a free mail-in entry option, apparently intended to address the consideration requirement. However, case law suggests that the presence of a free entry method may not be sufficient to eliminate consideration in all circumstances. In Sniezek, for example, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that a system primarily designed around the sale of entries for prizes could constitute illegal gambling, even where free entry options existed. The court emphasized the overall structure and primary purpose of the business in reaching its conclusion, holding that because the primary purpose of the business was the sale of entries to prize-based drawings, consideration was not eliminated solely by the availability of free alternative measures of entry.

Additional questions arise regarding consideration from the seller’s perspective. The platform’s structure contemplates that the escrow goal for entry purchases collectively corresponds to the value of the listed property. Colorado courts have not directly addressed whether receiving property value through such a system would constitute consideration in a gambling analysis. Aside from gambling considerations, the transfer of real property as a prize introduces real property transaction complexities as well. These may include title transfer requirements, compliance with recording statutes, treatment of existing liens and encumbrances, and tax implications. Anyone desiring to participate in a drawing will first want to determine, at the very least, whether existing liens on the property will be paid off from the proceeds of the drawing, whether the winner will receive an owner’s policy of title insurance, and examine any exclusions or exceptions to such policy.

For much of the American West, this winter has been historically warm and dry. Due to the resulting snow drought, many experts are predicting an intense wildfire season in Colorado and across the West more broadly. Colorado legislators have taken notice. As in recent legislative sessions, there is currently a tranche of wildfire mitigation and resiliency bills in the General Assembly aimed at helping Colorado property owners reduce their risk exposure.

Background

As climate change accelerates, Colorado has begun to deal with an uncomfortable reality: fire seasons are beginning to look more like fire years. One need not look much further than the recent “out-of-season” wildfires in Boulder in late February and early March to see that these fires are not exclusively a summer problem, nor a rural one. The costliest wildfire in state history was less than five years ago; it happened in the Front Range in the month of December.

In response, the state has taken steps to protect home and business owners from this expanding risk. In 2023, the state adopted the Colorado FAIR Plan, aimed at providing property insurance to property owners who could no longer find insurance products on the private market. In last year’s session, the General Assembly passed a number of wildfire-related bills, including one that requires property insurers to include certain information in their risk models and share data with the Colorado Insurance Commissioner. Another allows fire protection districts to create vegetative fuel mitigation programs and levy fees on property owners who do not comply with a district’s fuel removal requirements.

2026 Bills

  • HB26-1310. This bill requires the General Assembly to appropriate funds to the Wildfire Resilient Homes Grant Program established by HB23-1273. This program provides grants for home hardening to homeowners in areas of high wildfire risk. In awarding these grants, the new legislation requires the state to prioritize homeowners who are at or below 70% of the area median income and homeowners who lack the ability to perform the home hardening work because of age, disability, or illness. The bill is scheduled for a hearing before the House Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources Committee on March 16.
  • HB26-1289. Section 8 of this bill modifies the state’s tax code to expand an existing wildfire mitigation tax credit to include the thinning of woody vegetation that is at risk of beetle infestation or that has been killed by invasive beetles. Section 8 sets a maximum credit level of $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for joint filers; it also allows the credit to be carried forward for up to five years. The bill is scheduled for a hearing before the House Finance Committee on March 16.
  • SB26-049. This bill adds individual homeowners and homeowners’ associations as eligible grant recipients from the state’s Natural Disaster Mitigation Enterprise fund. It allows grants to be awarded for the installation of impact-resistant roofing, as well as for property-specific wildfire mitigation actions. The bill also creates an income tax deduction for contributions to a catastrophe savings account, an account that a homeowner may use to cover deductibles for claims stemming from hail, wildfire, or a catastrophic wind event; uninsured losses related to these events; and property-specific mitigation actions. The bill has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing as of writing.
  • SB26-089. This bill recreates the Wildfire Matters Review Committee to succeed a prior committee that ended on September 1, 2025. This is an interim committee with the purpose to “review the implementation and effectiveness of state policies and resources for wildfire prevention and mitigation and to consider and recommend legislation or other policy changes to address all matters relating to wildfire prevention and mitigation including public safety, forest health, and cooperation with appropriate federal agencies and local governments.” The bill has been referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee and Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing as of writing.

Looking Ahead

These bills, while far from providing comprehensive protection from the looming fire season, demonstrate that the General Assembly is continuing to reckon with the risks posed by unmitigated wildfires in the state. State agencies and cities have already begun efforts to build better collaborative infrastructure for addressing wildfire and water issues in the coming year. Both residential and commercial property owners in the state would do well to have a comprehensive understanding of their insurance coverage and of the various local, state, and federal programs that exist to incentivize wildfire mitigation and hardening efforts on private property. While the severity of the coming fire season cannot be predicted with certainty, savvy property owners can take steps to adjust their risk exposure proactively.

Otten Johnson attorneys are happy to discuss this legislation, or other bills that may impact real estate and land use in Colorado, in more detail.

Colorado legislators are once again advancing legislation they say will address the state’s need for affordable housing. With an abundance of vacant and underutilized land currently restricted from use for residential developments, lawmakers argue that reducing local zoning barriers will expand the availability of housing across the state.

Arguments in Favor of the Proposed Legislation:

House Bill 26-1001 (“HB26-1001”) aims to allow construction of residential developments on qualifying properties, subject to a simplified administrative approval process. Introduced on the first day of the legislative session, HB26-1001 represents legislators’ continued commitment to securing its passage after last year’s proposal (“HB25-1169”) was unsuccessful.

As proposed this session, qualifying properties include property that is no larger than five acres and is owned by:

  1. a nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing or providing public transit;
  2. a nonprofit organization that has entered into an agreement with another nonprofit organization with a demonstrated history of providing affordable housing to develop a residential development on the property;
  3. a school district;
  4. a state college or university;
  5. a housing authority; or
  6. a transit authority serving one or more counties.

This notable shift from HB25-1169, which focused on eligibility for faith-based organizations, schools, and universities, represents an effort to expand the scope of qualifying properties while reducing the potential for political opposition.

According to the Democrats in support of HB26-1001, local zoning ordinances often prevent housing from being developed on vacant land by requiring an extensive rezoning process that adds unnecessary costs and uncertainty to affordable housing projects. Pursuant to the language of HB26-1001, local governments must allow qualifying properties to proceed with their residential development after an administrative review with objective criteria instead of requiring developers to go through the typical rezoning approval procedures, which generally include public hearings and discretionary approval standards from planning commissions.

At the House Transportation, Housing & Local Government Committee (“Committee”) hearing on February 3, 2026, Democrats argued that public participation in residential rezoning processes is overwhelmingly oppositional and that such community opposition and restrictive land use regulations limit the overall housing supply as developers are more likely to abandon projects that are subject to a discretionary review process.

Opposition and Concerns:

HB26-1001 highlights the tension between a local government’s authority to regulate land use and the state’s authority to preempt such regulations.

The Colorado Municipal League (“CML”) argues that local governments are best suited to meet the unique land use needs of their community through a transparent public process, and that by requiring a local government to ignore its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, the Colorado legislature ignores the importance of community engagement in local governance.

At the Committee hearing, CML argued that a developer’s ability to construct housing that is inconsistent with the uses of the surrounding area could constitute impermissible spot zoning. Further, opponents worry that the legislature’s attempt to preempt local control by allowing developers to bypass local zoning requirements could potentially violate the powers reserved to municipal governments under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution.

Legislative Status:

HB26-1001 passed in the House of Representatives on the Third Reading with a 35-24 vote on February 6, 2026.

Although HB26-1001 could lead to an expansion of Colorado’s housing supply, it faces steep challenges as it heads to the Senate Local Government & Housing Committee on March 4, 2026, where further debate and amendments will likely occur.

Track the progress of HB26-1001 here.

On January 20, 2026, the White House issued an Executive Order titled Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers that aims to address concerns about large institutional investors acquiring single-family homes.

The order lays out a clear policy objective: to preserve the supply of single-family homes for families and individual owner-occupants, reframing the federal government’s role in the housing market accordingly. That statement resonates with a long-standing public concern—particularly among first-time homebuyers—about competition in the marketplace for the limited supply of homes. However, the statement also raises legitimate concerns among investors that changes to governmental policies could negatively impact existing investments and deprive them of new investment opportunities.

A few elements of the order bear watching from a real estate perspective:

  • Definitions will matter. The Treasury Secretary is required to define “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” within 30 days. How these terms are drafted will shape the scope of any implementing guidance. How those terms are drafted could determine whether the order meaningfully affects only a small number of large, national portfolios or instead reaches a much broader swath of investment activity, including regional and mid-sized operators.
  • The order’s immediate effect is procedural, not prescriptive. Much of Section 3 directs federal agencies to issue guidance on how their programs and activities will align with the policy—specifically, to discourage federal support (e.g., financing, guarantees, or asset disposition) that could facilitate institutional purchases of homes that might otherwise be available to individual buyers. At this stage, there are no direct prohibitions on private market transactions between buyers and sellers.
  • There are carve-outs and nuances. The text explicitly contemplates exceptions for build-to-rent properties developed as rental communities, which suggests that new construction targeted at the rental market may be treated differently than acquisitions in the existing housing stock.
  • Beyond guidance: antitrust and legislative steps. The order also directs reviews by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission of large institutional investor activity for potential anti-competitive effects, and it tasks White House staff with preparing legislative recommendations to codify the underlying policy.

As a threshold matter, it bears noting that an Executive Order does not itself create binding law; its practical impact depends on subsequent agency rulemaking, enforcement posture, and—where necessary—congressional action. Taken together, these provisions underscore that the real test will come in the implementation—in definitions, agency guidance, and whether legislative action follows. For practitioners and investors, the early takeaway is that this Executive Order signals a shift in federal housing policy emphasis, but the concrete effects on markets and transactions are still unfolding.

On October 1, 2025, House Bill 25-1043 (the “House Bill”) went into effect.  The House Bill is a comprehensive bill that requires most owners’ associations (“HOAs”) that are subject to the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) to update their governing documents, adjust collection policies and provide certain additional information to the Division of Real Estate (“DRE”) upon the HOA’s registration or renewal.  This post is a brief overview of the House Bill; for more information on the House Bill, please contact Otten Johnson, or visit the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies HOA Information.

Pursuant to C.R.S Section 38-33.3-117(1.5)(c), all HOAs created in Colorado must have a policy concerning the collection of unpaid assessments.  The House Bill requires additional information to be added to the HOA’s unpaid assessment collection policies. 

The House Bill mandates that at least 30 days prior to initiating a foreclosure action to recover money owed to the HOA, the HOA must send the applicable unit owner notice (in written and electronic format) that includes the following information:

  1. An advisement that the unit owner may request a copy of the HOA’s ledger verifying the amount owed, together with the name and contact information for the individual the unit owner may contact to request such a copy.  The notice must also advise that, if requested, a copy of the ledger must be sent to the unit owner no later than seven business days after the request.
    1. Prior to the House Bill, HOAs were not required to provide a copy of the ledger within seven business days of a unit owner’s request.
  2. An advisement that action is required to cure the delinquency and that failure to cure the delinquency within 30 days could result in the HOA filing a lien and instituting foreclosure action which could result in the sale of the unit at auction and the unit owner losing some or all of the unit owner’s equity in the unit.
    1. Prior to the House Bill, HOAs were not required to inform unit owners that their unit could be sold at auction.
  3. An advisement on the availability of, and instructions on how to access, free online information through the HOA Information and Resource Center created in C.R.S. Section 12-10-801(1) relating to the collection of assessments by an HOA and the availability of online information from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning credit counseling before foreclosure that may be accessed through a link on the Colorado Department of Local Affairs website.  The notice must also include information on what credit counseling may entail for the unit owner and the kind of services that credit counseling could include.
    1. Prior to the House Bill, HOAs were not required to provide this information on credit counseling.

Notably, prior to the House Bill, HOAs were required only to substantially comply with CCIOA’s assessment and foreclosure requirements in order to avail itself of remedies against delinquent owners.  Now, after the House Bill, HOAs are required to strictly comply with CCIOA’s assessment and foreclosure requirements.  This means that HOAs need to be particularly careful in drafting their governing documents and initiating action against a unit owner for unpaid amounts.  If a court finds that the HOA has not strictly complied with CCIOA, the HOA risks a court staying foreclosure proceedings to allow the HOA to come into strict compliance and/or not granting the HOA certain remedies available to it under CCIOA.  During the stay period, the HOA is not permitted to assess or accrue late fees, interests, or other delinquency charges against a unit owner.

The House Bill also requires that, as a part of an HOA’s annual registration, an HOA must submit the following information:

  1. The number of unit owners that are six or more months delinquent in the payment of assessments during the preceding 12-month period;
  2. The number of judgements obtained against unit owners; and
  3. The number of foreclosure actions filed by the HOA.

Otten Johnson attorneys have assisted several HOAs with updating their governing documents and are happy to discuss the House Bill in more detail.