of the property, as a result of the Cappses’ default on the installment land contract, Cedar Lane’s status changed from that of a bona fide purchaser to that of an innocent donee. In my view, Cedar Lane retained its status as a bona fide purchaser for value and, in regaining possession of the property and keeping the down payment, it was simply exercising the contractual rights for which it had bargained in an arms-length transaction. It was not unjustly enriched. While Cedar Lane did receive benefits, including some improvements to the property added by the Cappses, the benefits were not accepted or received under circumstances that would make it inequitable for Cedar Lane to retain them. See Ninth District Production Credit Ass’n v. Ed Duggan, Inc., 821 P.2d 788 (Colo.1991) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the majority concluded that American
holding a secured creditor has standing to appeal a ruling that impacted its financial interest in collateral recognizing that a secured creditor is not unjustly enriched by receiving collateral that has increased in value without expense to the second creditor recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property