In Duran v. Housing Authority of Denver (Colo. 1988) 761 P.2d 180, the landlord served the tenant on November 7, 1985 with a 14-day notice to pay the November rent or quit. (Duran, at p. 181.) The lease required at least 14 days' notice. (Duran, at p. 181, fn. 2.) The notice stated that the landlord intended to terminate the lease if the tenant did not pay. The tenant did not respond to this notice. The lease also required the landlord to give a statutory three-day notice after the expiration of the 14-day notice. (Duran, at p. 181, fn. 3.) On November 25, 1985, the landlord posted a notice giving the tenant an additional three days to pay or quit. (Duran at p. 181.) The tenant did not respond to the three-day notice, and the landlord filed an unlawful detainer action. (Duran, at p. 181.) Nevertheless, on December 6, 1985, a few days after the landlord filed the unlawful detainer action, the landlord served on the tenant a 14-day notice to pay the November and December rents or quit. (Duran, at p. 182.) Before this 14-day period had expired, the tenant offered to pay the November and December rents to the landlord, but the landlord refused to accept the money. (Duran, at p. 182.) The landlord prevailed in the trial court in its unlawful detainer action. (Duran, at p. 182.) The issue before the Colorado Supreme Court in Duran was whether the landlord had waived its right to terminate the lease by serving a new 14-day notice during the pendency of the unlawful detainer action. (Duran, supra, 761 P.2d at p. 182.) The Colorado Supreme Court noted that it had previously held that " 'any act done by a landlord with knowledge of an existing right of forfeiture, which recognizes the existence of the lease is a waiver of the right to enforce the forfeiture.' " (Duran, at p. 183.) The court viewed the issue before it as whether the landlord's "actions . . . demonstrate sufficient lack of consistency regarding its intentions as to constitute waiver." (Duran, at p. 184.) The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the landlord's service of a 14-day notice during the pendency of the unlawful detainer action created an inconsistency that constituted waiver. (Duran, at p. 184.) "This second fourteen-day notice could reasonably be said to have led the tenant to believe that eviction would not really be carried out until the second notice period had expired." (Ibid.) "In other words, the final message from the landlord to the tenant suggested that the lease was still in effect and that the tenant still had an opportunity to preserve her tenancy." (Ibid.)