Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Management Corp.
| Decision Date | 28 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. C--461,C--461 |
| Citation | 522 P.2d 737,185 Colo. 160 |
| Parties | BRECKENRIDGE COMPANY and Division of State Compensation Insurance Fund, Petitioners, v. SWALES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and Security Insurance Company of Hartford, Respondents and Cross-Petitioners, v. Danny BEYERS et al., Respondents and Cross-Respondents, v. Danny BEYERS and Don Lowe, Respondents and Cross-Petitioners, v. Harold STAFFORD et al., Cross-Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Francis L. Bury, Robert S. Ferguson, Denver, for petitioners Breckenridge Co. and Div. of State Compensation Ins. Fund.
Weller, Friedrich, Hickisch & Hazlitt, Geoffrey S. Race, Denver, for Swales Management Corp. and Security Ins. Co. of Hartford.
Brenman, Sobol & Baum, Arthur L. Fine, Denver, for Danny Beyers and Don Lowe.
John P. Moore, atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Peter L. Dye, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for Industrial Comm'n of Colo.
Leonard V. Carlin, Denver, for Donald G. Swales and William E. Clark, individually and d/b/a Fanny Placer Venture, a joint venture.
We granted certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals which held that Breckenridge Company, as a joint venturer on a contract for the sale of land, was liable to claimants-respondents for workmen's compensation under C.R.S. 1963, 81--9--2(1). Breckenridge Co. and Division of State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Beyers, Lowe and Industrial Commission of Colorado, 33 Colo.App. ---, 517 P.2d 476 (1973).
Petitioner Breckenridge is a land development company engaged in selling real estate to purchasers who agree to comply with a master plan of realty development over which Breckenridge maintains ultimate control. It originally entered into a contract on August 23, 1971, with Swales Management Company (SMC) for the sale of property to be used for the construction of a theatre and apartment building. By the contract, Breckenridge was given the right to approve and modify the proposed buildings, consistent with their previously adopted master plan. Breckenridge retained legal title to the property as a means of insuring that their master plan was satisfied, but SMC was responsible for all aspects of financing their venture. There is no evidence that the proceeds or losses of the construction were to be shared, nor that any part of the proceeds of the land sale inured to the purchasers.
It subsequently developed that SMC could not obtain financing, and their president and secretary-treasurer formed a joint venture, Fanny Placer Venture, to obtain the necessary construction funds. The president and secretary- treasurer were personally liable for all obligations of Fanny Placer. Fanny Placer then entered into a contract with Stafford-Coull Associates, a construction firm, for the building of the apartments and theatre. Breckenridge was not a party to that contract. On November 9, 1971, Beyers and Lowe, employees of the construction firm, were injured on the job and initiated workmen's compensation proceedings against SMC, Fanny Placer, Breckenridge and their employers.
On November 23, 1971, two weeks after the accident, Fanny Placer and Breckenridge finally agreed on the terms of a second contract for sale of the property; the contract was virtually identical to that of August 23, again providing that Breckenridge would have authority to approve all construction plans and modifications and further providing it was to be effective as of August 23, 1971. Again, no sharing of profits or losses was contemplated. On hearing before an Industrial Commission referee, breckenridge was found to be liable.
The Industrial Commission, in affirming and reversing the referee's findings, held: (1) That Stafford-Coull was not liable under the workmen's compensation laws; (2) that SMC was liable; (3) that Fanny Placer was not liable; (4) that Breckenridge was liable. On review in the Court of Appeals, that court held: (1) That Stafford-Coull was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Regional Transp. Dist., 86SC230
...a creature of American courts.Prosser and Keeton § 72, at 517 (footnote omitted). See also Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Management Corp., 185 Colo. 160, 163-64, 522 P.2d 737, 739 (1974) (three elements that must exist in order to show joint venture are 1) joint interest in property; 2) agreem......
-
Concealfab Corp. v. Sabre Indus., Inc.
...in the venture." Agland, Inc. v. Koch Truck Line, Inc., 757 P.2d 1138, 1138-39 (Colo. App. 1988) (citing Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Mgmt. Corp., 522 P.2d 737, 739 (Colo. 1974)). However, "[f]iduciary relationships that derive from a special relationship of trust, reliance, influence, and co......
-
Sleeping Indian Ranch v. West Ridge Group
...joint "and not [] several profit[s]") (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted); see also Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Mgmt. Corp., 185 Colo. 160, 163-64, 522 P.2d 737, 739 (1974). Importantly, "the pooling of property, money, assets, skill, or knowledge does not create the relatio......
-
Betenson v. Call Auto and Equipment Sales, Inc., 17600
...Great Western Savings and Loan Association, 69 Cal.2d 850, 73 Cal.Rptr. 369, 447 P.2d 609 (1968); Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Management, 185 Colo. 160, 522 P.2d 737 (1974); Dang v. F and S Land Development Corp., Hawaii, 618 P.2d 276 (1980); Easter v. McNabb, 97 Idaho 180, 541 P.2d 604 (197......
-
CHAPTER 3 THE OPERATOR UNDER OIL & GAS JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENTS--THE 3 RS OF RESPONSIBILITIES, REMOVAL, AND REPLACEMENT
...S.W.2d 184, 186 (Tex. 1981). [109] McGee v. Alexander, 37 P.3d 800, 806-7 (Okla. 2001). [110] Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Management Corp. 522 P.2d 737, 739 (Colo. 1974). [111] Under North Dakota law, four elements must be present to form a joint venture, namely "(1) contribution by the part......
-
CHAPTER 3 THE OPERATOR UNDER OIL & GAS JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENTS—THE 3Rs OF RESPONSIBILITIES, REMOVAL, AND REPLACEMENT
...S.W.2d 184, 186 (Tex. 1981). [93] McGee v. Alexander, 37 P.3d 800, 806-7 (Okla. 2001). [94] Breckenridge Co. v. Swales Management Corp. 522 P.2d 737, 739 (Colo. 1974). [95] Under North Dakota law, four elements must be present to form a joint venture, namely "(1) contribution by the parties......