Aaron Belzer

Bar / Professional Activity

• U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2014
• United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Member, American Association for Justice
• Colorado Bar Association
• Board Member, Denver University Law Review Advisory Board
• Student Trial Lawyers Association
• Colorado, 2014
• Colorado Bar Association, Senior Member: Litigation Section; Civil Rights Section; Open Forum; Solo Small Firm Practice Section; Cannabis Law Section
• Boulder Bar Association

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

• Published Appellate Opinion Preserving Parental-Responsibilities Order.  Colorado Court of Appeals | 2026COA4 (published, first impression) Represented the appellee mother in a published opinion of first impression. The father appealed both the permanent order allocating parental responsibilities—which had awarded our client sole decision-making and approved her relocation with the parties' child—and the related award of attorney fees. We persuaded the division that the father's challenge to the parenting order was untimely under C.A.R. 4(a)(1), and the court dismissed that portion of the appeal, leaving the favorable parenting and relocation order intact. In doing so, the division announced a new rule of law: that an order allocating parental responsibilities in a proceeding not involving a dissolution of marriage is final and appealable even while a request for attorney fees under section 14-10-119, C.R.S., remains pending — distinguishing In re Marriage of Hill. (The division separately reversed and remanded the attorney-fee award for further findings.), 2026
• Amid a Rule 120 foreclosure action implicating the marital residence, we secured a resolution that protected our client’s interest in the property, with the action concluding by stipulated dismissal., 2025
• Two Colorado Supreme Court Petitions Defeated. The opposing party twice invoked the Colorado Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21, seeking emergency relief and an order halting the trial court’s contempt proceedings. We turned back both petitions; the Court denied each, en banc., 2025
• Federal Remand Secured; Attorney Fees Awarded. After the opposing party removed the pending state contempt proceeding to federal court under the civil-rights removal statute, we obtained a summary remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The federal court then granted our client’s motion for fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), finding the removal objectively unreasonable., 2025
• Appeal.  Won reversal of an adverse probate order, securing our client's right to take title to a 1,200-acre Colorado family ranch as a joint tenant with right of survivorship. After three brothers inherited the ranch from their father, who died intestate, they orally agreed to hold the property as joint tenants—but one brother died unexpectedly before the personal representative's deed could be executed. Relying on Colorado's joint tenancy statute, the probate court held that the absence of a writing defeated the brothers' intent and imposed a tenancy in common, which would have diverted the deceased brother's share away from the family. On appeal, we successfully argued that section 38-31-101(1) governs only actual conveyances and devises, not agreements to convey property in the future, and separately, that the brothers' oral agreement was a separately enforceable contract not barred by the statute of frauds. The Court of Appeals agreed on both of the grounds argued, and it reversed and remanded for execution of a deed in joint tenancy with right of survivorship., 2025
• A successful appeal for our clients.  After a probate court directed that an intestate property holder's property be transferred to the three surviving heirs as a tenancy in common, despite indisputable evidence the heirs' oral agreement to hold the property as joint tenants, we filed an appeal on behalf of the two surviving heirs.  In that appeal, we argued that the statute the court applied to invalidate the oral agreement, CRS 38-31-101, did not apply because there was no "conveyance" or "devise."  Moreover, we argued that to the extent the statute of frauds barred enforcement of the oral agreement, several exceptions applied that rendered the agreement enforceable.  The Court of Appeals agreed with our arguments, and held that the trial court had erred because there was no "conveyance" or "devise."  The appellate court further agreed with our argument that the oral agreement was enforceable. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and ordered that the property be transferred to our clients, the surviving heirs, in joint tenancy.  , 2025
• Obtained full dismissal on a CRCP 12(b)(5) Motion in district court, in a case in which our client was accused of numerous intentional torts.  The trial court agreed with the arguments we set forth, including but not limited to the argument that the claims were barred by claim preclusion and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims.  In addition to a dismissal of all claims, the court awarded our client attorney fees incurred in defending the action. , 2025
• In a contentious Federal District Court case, our client was accused of being liable for more than $400,000 in damages related to an alleged fraudulent transfer.  After various motions practice and strategic positioning of the case, we obtained a very favorable settlement for our client in which the client paid only $5,000 in exchange for a full dismissal of all claims asserted against the client.  , 2025
• Gestner v. Gestner, 2024COA55 (2024).  Based on our briefing, a division of the court of appeals addressed the extent to which a default judgment is reviewable on appeal when no motion to set aside the default judgment has been filed and ruled upon in the district court.  The court of appeals agreed with our arguments and held that the court of appeals has jurisdiction over a direct appeal from a default judgment, but that the normal rules of preservation apply. Thus, when an appellant does not appear or present any arguments in the district court before the default judgment was entered, an appeal of the default judgment generally will not be reviewable on the merits because the appellant’s arguments will ordinarily be unpreserved., 2024
• Sought and obtained more than $500,000 in attorney fees for nonprofit corporation plaintiffs following lengthy and protracted litigation that culminated in a five-day jury trial in which our clients prevailed on a number of claims, including a claim for civil theft.  The fee award was strenuously contested, and after two days of hearings, the court agreed with our legal arguments and awarded more than half a million dollars in fees for our clients. , 2024
• After Plaintiffs failed to produce disclosures and otherwise caused significant delays in this district court proceeding, we obtained a full dismissal of all claims asserted against our client and entered sanctions against the Plaintiffs and their counsel, and ultimately awarding our clients attorneys' fees for the litigation. , 2024
• In re Marriage of Cerrone, 20CA0816.  Dennis Cerrone (husband) appealed the district court's order adopting a magistrate's ruling denying his motion for a declaratory judgment that his maintenance obligation to Jill Cerrone (wife) under the parties' separation agreement ended automatically on wife's remarriage. Because the separation agreement did not expressly provide that maintenance would continue after wife remarried, the court of appeals concluded in a published decision that husband's maintenance obligation terminated by operation of law once she did so. The court of appeals reversed the order and remand the case to the district court with directions to grant husband's motion and determine the amount wife must reimburse him for maintenance he paid after the date of her remarriage.  In doing so, the court of appeals accepted our argument that nearly thirty years of Colorado precedent should be reversed., 2021

Representative Clients

• Private company, corporate business acquirers in post-closing and acquisition-related disputes concerning breaches of the purchase agreement and non-compete provision in same, and enforcement of award obtained regarding the same, 2026
• Closely held businesses in commercial and contract litigation, 2026
• Closely held businesses in commercial and contract litigation, 2025
• Closely held businesses in commercial and contract litigation, 2024
• Closely held businesses in commercial and contract litigation, 2023
• Buyers and sellers of businesses enforcing and defending restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements, 2023
• Buyers and sellers of businesses enforcing and defending restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements, 2024
• Buyers and sellers of businesses enforcing and defending restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements, 2025
• Private company, corporate business acquirers in post-closing and acquisition-related disputes concerning breaches of the purchase agreement and non-compete provision in same, 2025

Special Licenses / Certifications

• Certified Trial Lawyer, National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), 2019

Educational Background

• Western State Colorado University, Gunnison, Colorado, B.A., 2007

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

• The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Chapter Update, in Practitioner’s Guide to Employment Law (Colorado Bar Association 2014) (Contributor), Contributor
• Participated in panel discussion regarding business intelligence, data privacy, and Colorado's new Privacy Act, Panelist, Colorado Secretary of State's Business Intelligence Center InnovateCO Forum, 2023
• Presented to DAMA, an organization of and for data professionals, concerning Colorado's new Privacy Act.  The presentation discussed not only the potential impact of the new law regarding privacy, data management, and data security, but also the newly afforded rights of consumers. We explored possible judicial interpretations of the new law based on existing state and federal precedent, how that jurisprudence might be applied in this new context, similar laws that exist in other states, and how to prepare for Colorado's new law to take effect., Lecturer, Colorado Privacy Act, Data Management Association (DAMA), 2023
• Editor in Chief of the Denver University Law Review, Editor in Chief
• Comment, The Audacity of Ignoring Hope: How the Existing Qualified Immunity Analysis Leads to Un-Remedied Rights, 90 Denver University Law Review 647 (2013), Author
• The New Public Accommodations: Race Discrimination in the Platform Economy, 105 Georgetown Law Journal 1271 (2017) (with Nancy Leong), Co-Author
• Putting the “Review” Back in Rational Basis Review, 41 Western St. Univ. Law Review 339 (2014), Author
• Enforcing Rights, 62 UCLA Law Review 306 (2015) (with Nancy Leong), Co-Author
• From Writs to Remedies: A Historical Explanation for Multiple Remedies at Common Law, 93 Denver Law Review Online 1 (2016), Author

Honors

• Selected as a Super Lawyers Rising Star five years in a row, Super Lawyers Rising Star 2020-2024, Super Lawyers
• Super Lawyers Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2024
• Super Lawyers Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2023
• Super Lawyers Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2022
• Super Lawyers Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2021
• Super Lawyers Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2020
• Recipient of Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award five years in a row, Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award 2020-2024, Martindale-Hubbell
• Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award, Martindale-Hubbell, 2024
• Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award, Martindale-Hubbell, 2023
• Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award, Martindale-Hubbell, 2022
• Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award, Martindale-Hubbell, 2021
• Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award, Martindale-Hubbell, 2020
• Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Award, Martindale-Hubbell, 2019
• Avvo – Rating of 10.0
• Trial Skills Certificate, 2019
• American Registry Most Honored Lawyers – Best of the Best, 2022
• Arnold P. Chutkow Award
• Hartje Objective Writing Award
• Avvo – Clients’ Choice Award, 2018

“Aaron Belzer is one of the most impressive and competent attorneys I have ever known. He is truly exceptional and is already recognized as a leader in his field. ”

“Excellent Civil Litigator and Mentor”

“Aaron has a strong grasp on the law and a strong advocate for his clients. He makes himself available to help his peers.”

“Aaron has been honing his craft as an appellate and civil attorney since entering the practice about 4 years ago. He is smart and driven, with unmatched legal research and writing skills. Aaron came busting out of the gate and immediately distinguished himself from his peers.”

“Aaron is absolutely and unabashedly brilliant in his representation of civil plaintiffs and appellate cases. He owns the records like he's sleeping with them under his pillow and he turns cases upside down with his wit and savvy.”

“Aaron is the former Editor in Chief of DU Law Review and he clerked for COA Deputy Chief Judge Gilbert M. Roman. Aaron is so talented that we established a civil division specifically for him. He is a student of the law and he masters the facts, and the result is a perfect record in trial.”