Association of Owners, Satellite Apartment, Inc. v. Otte, 75--554
| Citation | 38 Colo.App. 12, 550 P.2d 894 |
| Case Date | May 20, 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Page 894
Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Walter H. OTTE and Ruth I. Otte, Defendants-Appellees.
Page 895
William D. Schaneman, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert Dunlap, Colorado Springs, for defendants-appellees.
[38 Colo.App. 13] COYTE, Judge.
Plaintiff, Association of Owners, Satellite Apartment, Inc., (Association) appeals from an adverse summary judgment holding that its suit instituted on November 19, 1973, for injunctive relief against defendants, Walter H. and Ruth I. Otte, was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set out in C.R.S. 1963, 118--8--4, (now § 38--41--119, C.R.S. 1973). We affirm.
The Association's original complaint consisted of two counts: The first alleged that defendants had violated certain provisions of both the condominium declaration and the corporate bylaws of the Association, in that defendants had enclosed a balcony contiguous to the condominium unit which they owned; the second count alleged that, by virtue of constructing the glass enclosure, defendants trespassed upon a 'limited common element.' The Association prayed for a mandatory injunction requiring removal of the enclosure. Prior to the hearing, the Association abandoned its cause of action in trespass, and hence we do not reach the issue of whether the one-year statute of limitations barred that action.
The case was submitted to the court on the following stipulated facts: That Plaintiff is an association of all owners, tenants and occupants of the Satellite apartment building, which building is a condominium created pursuant to a recorded condominium is declaration; that the condominium is composed of individual units as defined in the condominium declaration; that defendants owned and occupied unit C--1007 and were and are members of the Association; that the Association's affairs were controlled by its bylaws; that defendants had the exclusive use of the balcony adjoining their condominium unit while the Association reserved the right of entry onto said balcony; that defendant Ruth I. Otte was appointed by the board of directors as a member of the architectural committee to study a standard structure for balcony storage; that memoranda were circulated to all occupants stating that balconies were 'limited common elements' as defined in the condominium declaration, and that occupants were specifically prohibited from constructing balcony enclosures; that on or about September 30, 1970, defendants completely enclosed the balcony appurtenant to their condominium unit with glass from floor to ceiling without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Balle-Tun v. Zeng & Wong, Inc., Civil Action 21-cv-03106-NRN
...of a particular statute of limitations.” McDowell v. U.S., 870 P.2d 656, 661 (Colo.App. 1994) (quoting Assoc. of Owners v. Otte, 550 P.2d 894, 896 (Colo.App. 1976)). When determining which of two possibly applicable statutes of limitations applies, the Colorado Supreme Court instructs that ......
-
McDowell v. U.S., 92CA2040
...relief sought as a result of the encroachment within the twenty-foot setback area because, according to Association of Owners v. Otte, 38 Colo.App. 12, 550 P.2d 894 (1976), it is the nature of the right sued upon and not the nature of the relief demanded which governs the applicability of a......
-
San Juan Basin Consortium v. Enervest San Juan, Civ.A. 97-B-2710.
...period. See McDowell v. United States, 870 P.2d 656, 660-661 (Colo.App. 1994); Association of Owners, Satellite Apartment, Inc. v. Otte, 38 Colo.App. 12, 550 P.2d 894, 896 (1976). Furthermore, where a statute of limitations is specifically drafted to relate to special cases, it controls. Se......
-
Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 85SA113
...at issue, Schafer v. Aspen Skiing Corp., 742 F.2d 580, 582 (10th Cir.1984); Association of Owners, Satellite Apartment, Inc. v. Otte, 38 Colo.App. 12, 15, 550 P.2d 894, 896 (1976), sections 13-21-401(2) and 13-80-127.5(1) recognize that product liability actions may take many forms premised......