Published by Chipman Glasser on November 11, 2025
It is not uncommon in the context of a business dispute for one owner to sue the other for civil theft. In other words, business partners frequently accuse each other of stealing company assets. Sometimes these allegations arise from clear, intentional wrongdoing—a partner deliberately stealing or embezzling from the company. Sometimes, however, the circumstances are more nuanced, like when one partner is seeking to wind up a business against the wishes of another and questions arise about how to split inventory, what to do with ongoing jobs, and how to allocate the assets of the business. But, either way, allegations of civil theft are extremely common and can have serious consequences.
Colorado law provides that a party who prevails on a claim for civil theft is entitled to the return of the stolen items, plus treble damages (and recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees). See C.R.S. § 18-4-405. But what happens if the civil theft defendant “voluntarily” returns the stolen property prior to trial? Are they still liable for civil theft? And, if so, what might your damages look like?
Regarding the first question, Colorado law has long made clear that the return of the stolen item is not a defense to a claim for civil theft. See People v. Pedrie, 727 P.2d 859, 863 (Colo. 1986). In other words, a partner who stole company assets cannot simply shut down a civil theft claim by returning whatever he took.
Prior to 2022, however, no Colorado appellate court had addressed the second question—can a defendant avoid treble damages by returning the stolen property? And this lack of clear guidance led to a number of rulings in the lower courts that tended to side with the party conceding civil theft by returning the property before trial. See, e.g., Jennings v. Simpson, Case No. 2018CV30032, 2020 Colo. Dist. LEXIS 216, *8-12 (Larimer Cnty. Mar. 13, 2020) (rejecting treble damages and imposing fine of $200 minimum statutory penalty where property was returned).
In Chavez v. Chavez-Krumland (In re Estate of Chavez), the Colorado Court of Appeals finally addressed this second question. See 520 P.3d 194 (Colo. App. 2022). In Chavez, the lower court, like the court in Jennings, had to decide whether treble damages should still be awarded if the wrongdoer returned the stolen property before final judgment. There, the trial court decided that the returned property should be credited against the amount taken before determining treble damages. Accordingly, when the defendant returned the $70,917.17 prior to trial, the Court credited that against the amount stolen (also $70,917.17) when conducting its treble damages analysis. And because $70,917.17 – $70,917.17 is $0, the trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to treble damages calculated using a variable of $0 multiplied by a coefficient of 3. In other words, the court calculated 3 x $0 = $0 and awarded nothing to the plaintiff (since the stolen property had been returned).
The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed. As the Chavez Court explained, by enacting C.R.S. § 18-4-405, the Colorado General Assembly contemplated both the return of the stolen items and treble damages. And nothing in the statute contemplated a set-off for a thief who decided to return the stolen property the day before trial. Indeed, the Chavez Court noted that the civil theft statute’s damages model encompasses two distinct types of damages: actual damages (meant to be remedial) and treble damages (meant to be punitive). According to the Chavez Court, “recognizing an offset of the returned property before the actual damages are trebled contravenes the purpose of the statute.” Likewise, allowing a defendant to avoid punitive damages by returning the stolen property before a verdict is entered “would result in an award less than the statute contemplates,” which “risks disincentivizing individuals from bringing civil theft claims.”
“Recognizing an offset of the returned property before the actual damages are trebled contravenes the purpose of the statute.”
— Chavez v. Chavez-Krumland, 520 P.3d 194 (Colo. App. 2022)
Hence, in Chavez, the Colorado Court of Appeals expressly held that where a defendant returns stolen property before a verdict is entered against them for civil theft, that act should not operate as an offset to a plaintiff’s liability for treble damages. According to the Chavez Court, the proper award of treble damages was $212,703.51 (3x $70,917.17), even if the return of the money operated as an offset to the actual damages’ component.
Chavez is a helpful case for those litigating questions of civil theft, especially in the context of closely held business disputes or dissolution. After years of uncertainty, the Court of Appeals addressed a longstanding question regarding the impact of a civil theft defendant’s return of stolen property prior to trial in a subsequent damages analysis. Thanks to Chavez, Colorado litigants asserting claims for civil theft can rest assured that they can recover punitive damages, even if the defendant returns the property on the day of trial.