Board of County Com'rs of Dolores County v. Love
| Decision Date | 15 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24182,24182 |
| Parties | The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF DOLORES, State of Colorado; Richard C. Weber, as County Commissioner of the County of Dolores, State of Colorado and as a member of the County Board of Equalization of Dolores County, State of Colorado; Myron L. Jones, as County Commissioner of Dolores County, State of Colorado, and as a member of the County Board of Equalization of Dolores County, State of Colorado, Charles H. Tracy, as County Commissioner of Dolores County, State of Colorado, and as a member of the County Board of Equalization of Dolores County, State of Colorado; and Stanley R. Crapo, as Assessor of Dolores County, State of Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John A. LOVE, as Governor of the State of Colorado, and as Chairman and a member of the State Board of Equalization of the State of Colorado; Byron'Andy' Anderson, as Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, and as a member and Secretary of the State Board of Equalization of the State of Colorado; Duke Dunbar, as Attorney General of the State of Colorado, and as a member of the State Board of Equalization of the State of Colorado; John Proctor, as the State Auditor of the State of Colorado, and as a member of the State Board of Equalization of the State of Colorado; Virginia Blue, as the State Treasurer of the State of Colorado and as a member of the State Board of Equalization of the State of Colorado; Howard A. Latting, individually and as a Commissioner of the Colorado Tax Commission; A. A. Hall, individually and as a member of the Colorado Tax Commission; Raymond E. Carper, individually and as a member of the Colorado Tax Commission, and Anthony G. Ferraro, individually and as the Director of Appraisals of the Colorado Tax Commission, and the Colorado Tax Commission, the State Board of Equalization of the State of Colorado, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Guy B. Dyer, Jr., Cortez, for plaintiffs in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.
Plaintiffs in error were the plaintiffs in the trial court where they sought relief under C.R.C.P. 106 in the nature of mandamus and prohibition against defendants in error, referred to herein as 'defendants.' The complaint alleged seven claims for relief, all of which arose out of disputes relating to the action of the State Board of Equalization and of the Colorado Tax Commission in reviewing property appraisals of the Dolores County Assessor and in ordering reappraisals of Dolores County properties. The substance of the claims was that the commission and the State Board of Equalization abused their discretion and exceeded their authority in performance of their statutory duties under Chapter 137, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as amended.
An order to show cause was not issued by the trial court. However, defendants specifically appeared and moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs had neither standing nor authority to maintain the action. This issue was orally argued before the trial court which thereafter entered its written order dismissing the complaint.
This writ of error is directed to the trial court's order of dismissal, which is the only matter presented for review. Under these circumstances we need not consider the allegations of the seven claims for relief or the merits of plaintiffs' claims against defendants.
We agree with the trial court that plaintiffs, who brought this action in their official capacities as members of the Board of County Commissioners of Dolores County and as members of the Dolores County Board of Equalization, and as Assessor of Dolores County, have neither standing nor legal authority to maintain this action and that dismissal of the action was proper. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Concerning the standing of the Board of County Commissioners to bring suit against the defendants herein, certain fundamental principles must be recognized. A county is not an independent governmental entity existing by reason of any inherent sovereign authority of its residents; rather, it is a political subdivision of the state, existing only for the convenient administration of the state government, created to carry out the will of the state. Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Denver, 150 Colo. 198, 372 P.2d 152; Colorado Investment & Realty Co. v. Drainage Dist., 83 Colo. 468, 266 P. 501; Dixon v. People, 53 Colo. 527, 127 P. 930. As a political subdivision, a county, and its commissioners, possess only such powers as are expressly conferred upon them by the constitution and statutes, and such incidental implied powers as are reasonably necessary to carry out such express powers. People ex rel. Dunbar v. District Court, 127 Colo. 280, 255 P.2d 743; Farnick v. Commissioners, 139 Colo. 481, 341 P.2d 467; Sheely v. People, 54 Colo 136, 129 P. 201; Robbins v. County Commissioners, 50 Colo. 610, 115 P. 526.
No constitutional or statutory provision has been cited which in our view grants any express or implied powers to boards of county commissioners or to county boards of equalization to challenge in court the findings and orders of the State Tax Commission or State Board of Equalization.
Plaintiffs contend that the county has a right of appellate review of the orders and decisions of the taxing authorities under the general grant of power found in C.R.S.1963, 36--1--1(b) 'to sue and be sued' and under C.R.S.1963, 36--1--7(6) 'to represent the county and have the care of the county property and the management of the business and concerns of the county, in all cases where no other provisions are made by law.' The right 'to sue' relates to the county's function as a body corporate and can only be exercised within the framework of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maurer v. Young Life
...Board of County Commissioners v. State Board of Social Services, 186 Colo. 435, 528 P.2d 244 (1974); and Board of County Commissioners v. Love, 172 Colo. 121, 470 P.2d 861 (1970). 191 Colo. at 109, 550 P.2d at 866. The Martin standard thus precludes standing when two conditions are met: (1)......
-
Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. Byrne
...Board of County Commissioners v. State Board of Social Services, 186 Colo. 435, 528 P.2d 244 (1974); Board of County Commissioners v. Love, 172 Colo. 121, 470 P.2d 861 (1970); People v. Hively, 139 Colo. 49, 336 P.2d 721 (1959); People v. Pitcher, 61 Colo. 149, 156 P. 812 (1916); Ames v. Pe......
-
Romer v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Pueblo, Colo.
...enactment grants a county a substantive right to bring an action under the APA. We disagree. Board of County Commissioners of Dolores County v. Love, 172 Colo. 121, 470 P.2d 861 (1970), is illustrative. There, a county sought review of actions by the State Board of Equalization and the Tax ......
-
Wigger v. McKee, 88CA1523
...is a political subdivision of the state and is not a "person" under certain state statutes, see, e.g., Board of County Commissioners v. Love, 172 Colo. 121, 470 P.2d 861 (1970), do not affect this result. Such holdings involve neither the Eleventh Amendment nor 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Uni......
-
Rule 106 FORMS OF WRITS ABOLISHED.
...to maintain this action; taxpayers who are adversely affected may have judicial review. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Love, 172 Colo. 121, 470 P.2d 861 (1970). A competitor is not a person substantially aggrieved by the district court action, which would give him a right to seek review under sec......
-
CHAPTER 12 PRACTICE BEFORE STATE MINING AGENCIES
...was recently changed from 60 days to 30 days. [55] Id. §§ 24-4-102(12), 106(4.5). Compare, Board of County Comm'rs v. Love, 172 Colo. 121, 470 P.2d 861 (1970), in which Board of County Commissioners was an "agency" within the APA definition and thus was not a "person" who could seek judicia......
-
CHAPTER 11 ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE—LOCAL
...Robbins v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, 50 Colo. 610, 111 P. 526 (1911); Board of County Commissioners v. Love, 172 Colo. 121, 470 P.2d 861 (1970) Statutory cities and towns: Town of Eckley v. Meyers, 116 Colo. 536, 181 P.2d 1014 (1947); Bernheimer v. City of Leadville, 14 Colo. ......
-
REGULATORY TUG-O-WAR: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' EFFORTS TO REGULATE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT UNDER STATE REGULATORY SCHEMES
...The Dilemma of Local Land Use Control: Power With- out Responsibility, 33 MNEa L. Rev. 15 (1981). [8] Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Love, 470 P.2d 861, 863 (Colo. 1970). [9] For example, in Colorado each local government has the authority to plan and regulate the use of the land by: (a) Regulati......