Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court was asked to respond to a certified question posed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. The question arose out of an adversary proceeding in which the plaintiff, in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee, sought to assert his "strong arm" powers under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) to avoid the defendants' security interest in the debtor's property and to recover the property for the benefit of the estate. At the time the bankruptcy petition was filed, the defendants' security interest was documented in a deed of trust that was recorded and properly indexed in the City and County of Denver, where the encumbered property is located. The recorded deed identified the encumbered property by a correct and complete street address and expressly referred to an attached legal description of the property. The recorded deed, however, omitted the referenced attachment. The Trustee contended that because the recorded deed of trust did not contain a legal description of the encumbered property, it failed to provide sufficient notice of the defendants' security interest to a subsequent purchaser of the property under sections 38-35-109(1) and 38-35-122, C.R.S. (2011). The Supreme Court held that, under the circumstances of this case, actual knowledge could not be imputed to the trustee, and the deed of trust did not otherwise provide sufficient notice of the defendant's security interest in the debtor's property. The supreme court answered the certified question in the negative and returned the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado for further proceedings.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether section 38-5-105 C.R.S. (2011) granted condemnation authority to a company for the construction of a petroleum pipeline. Upon review, the Court concluded that the General Assembly did not grant expressly or implication, the power of eminent domain to companies for the construction of pipelines conveying petroleum. Therefore, section 38-5-105 did not grant that authority to Respondent Sinclair Transportation Company for its proposed pipeline project. The Court reversed the court of appeals' opinion that upheld the trial court's order granting Sinclair immediate possession of the property belonging to Petitioners Ivar and Donna Larson and Lauren and Kay Sandberg.

Plaintiff Jesse Reynolds and the owners of several other ditches that divert water from La Jara Creek appealed an order of the Water Court that denied their claim for declaratory relief. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that their appropriative rights to creek water were not limited to water flowing into the creek from the San Luis Valley Drain Ditch. Without directly addressing the merits of their claim, the water court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and Division Engineers (as well as other defendants) on the grounds that substantially the same issue had been litigated and decided against Plaintiffs in a prior declaratory action. The court concluded that all of the water rights of the parties in La Jara Creek were not only at issue, but were finally determined in that prior litigation, and therefore Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiffs' claims had not been determined in the prior litigation (either expressly or by implication), and that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate. The Court reversed the water court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In 2008, the Town of Minturn enacted annexation ordinances for nine parcels of property in response to annexation petitions filed in 2005, which claimed that Ginn (petitioner in this action) was the 100% owner of the land proposed to be annexed. Ginn and Respondent Sensible Housing Co. were involved in a quiet title action concerning portions of the annexed property, which commenced before Ginn filed the annexation petitions. Sensible sought judicial review of the annexation pursuant to section 31-12-116, C.R.S. (2011), asserting that Minturn exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by approving the annexation of the property without an election, due to the ongoing dispute as to the property’s title. The court of appeals agreed and applied the "priority rule" to the annexation proceedings, which states that "when more than one court can exercise jurisdiction over a matter, 'the court first acquiring jurisdiction [over] the parties and the subject matter has exclusive jurisdiction.'" Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the priority rule could not be applied to municipal annexation proceedings because those proceedings are a legislative function.

In this case, the District Court for Jefferson County dismissed a condemnation petition for a private way of necessity because the developer of the allegedly landlocked parcel did not sufficiently define the scope of and necessity for the proposed condemnation. Evidence showed that the development might vary from one to thirty residential dwellings which prevented the court from entering a condemnation order that would minimize the burden to be placed upon condemneeâs property. The court of appeals ruled that the condemnation could proceed based only upon the zoning of the condemnorâs property. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, and reinstated the district courtâs judgment. The Supreme Court held that, when a petitioner seeks to condemn a private way of necessity for access to property it wishes to develop in the future, it must demonstrate a purpose for the condemnation that enables the trial court to examine both the scope of and necessity for the proposed condemnation, so that the burden to be imposed upon the condemneeâs property may be ascertained and circumscribed through the trial courtâs condemnation order. The record in this case supported the trial courtâs dismissal of the condemnation petition.

Burlington Ditch, Reservoir & Land Company (Burlington) and Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company (FRICO) filed applications to change its 1885, 1908 and 1909 water rights. The changes to Burlington and FRICO's rights were precipitated by a new water supply project by the United Water & Sanitation District (United) and East Cherry Creek Valley Water & Sanitation District (ECCV). Approximately fifty parties argued for their particular interests in relation to Burlington and FRICO's applications. The water court imposed conditions on Burlington and FRICO's historic water rights to prevent injury to all other interested parties' rights. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Burlington, FRICO, United and ECCV challenged the water court's order regarding its determination of the historical consumptive use of the water rights. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the water court's decision.