Almost a month after a homeowners association filed lawsuits aimed at dismantling plans for a $300 million project set to change a key base area of Breckenridge Ski Resort, the developer serving as one of the defendants has filed its own legal proceedings to halt the group’s efforts. 

Developer Breckenridge Grand Vacations made two court filings June 24 in response to two lawsuits filed by One Ski Hill Place Homeowners Association in relation to its Imperial Hotel & Private Residences project planned for the base of Peak 8.

The homeowners association’s May 19 lawsuit sought to force the developer and a Vail Resorts subsidiary, Vail Summit Resorts Inc., to reinstate an easement terminated between the developer’s property and One Ski Hill Place Homeowners Association. A June 5 lawsuit brought against the town of Breckenridge claimed the town violated its own municipal code approving the project and sought to rescind that approval.

The 400,000-square-foot project is slated to house 90 fractional ownership condominiums, 43 whole ownership condominiums, 36 hotel units, nine townhomes, a speakeasy, a ski shop, a pet play area, a kennel and more to a site next to One Ski Hill Place, a large mutliuse building offering similar lodging and resort offerings.

One of the June 24 filings is a counterclaim responding to and denying many of the claims made in the May 19 lawsuit, and the second filing requests a preliminary injunction to stop the association’s efforts to block the project’s approval as a response to the June 5 lawsuit.

According to the preliminary injunction filing, the two parties signed a memorandum of understanding last year in which the developer claims the homeowners association agreed to support the development agreement for the project “in all respects.” 

“The HOA promised its support, then began to oppose the Imperial in the press, before Town, and in the courts, and its opposition must be stopped now before it can irreparably harm the project,” the lawsuit states, while detailing the association’s opposition as “remarkable.” It also suggests the effort to halt the project is coming from only a handful of the association’s members, noting, “some members broke away” to form an opposition group. 

In response to the claims made about the memorandum of understanding, attorney Alex Dorotik — representing One Ski Hill Place Homeowners Association — said his clients did sign the document agreeing support, but the developer didn’t hold up their end of the bargain. He said his clients are “pretty confused” as to how the document they signed allowed the developer to terminate the easement near their two properties. 

The developer said in the filing that quantifying the monetary damage it would undergo if the project’s approval is rescinded is difficult to do, but it claims the loss would be significant. It states it would leave the developer in a situation going “up a creek without a paddle” and would result in a “screeching halt” of project plans.

According to the preliminary injunction, Breckenridge Grand Vacations states part of their request is meant to preserve the status quo and ensure certainty for projects with existing approval from the town.

When it comes to the developer’s answers and counterclaim argument filing, a direct response to the May 19 lawsuit, it denies the homeowners association’s claim that it “included a number of intentionally and materially false statements” in the documentation to terminate the easement. The developer also denies it deliberately omitted “material facts” from the easement documents as well, another claim made by the plaintiff in the May 19 filing.

The June 24 counterclaim outlines the developers also deny One Ski Hill Place Homeowners Association’s claim that the easement terminated wasn’t controlled by the developer. The developer states it and Vail Summit Resorts Inc. were in control of the easement and had the right to terminated.

“(Breckenridge Grand Vacations) has attempted to work with the HOA, which responded with litigation against (Breckenridge Gran Vacations), and (Breckenridge Grand Vacations) now has no choice but to resolve its dispute,” the filing states.

Breckenridge Grand Vacations did not respond to a request for comment, citing its policy for ongoing litigation.