Cablevision of Breckenridge, Inc. v. Tannhauser Condominium Ass'n, 80SC354
| Decision Date | 23 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80SC354,80SC354 |
| Parties | CABLEVISION OF BRECKENRIDGE, INC., a Colorado corporation, Petitioner, v. TANNHAUSER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Colorado corporation; Tannhauser IIManagement Association, a Colorado corporation; Jerry O. White; Dorothy M.White; Alfred S. Leger; John R. Rademacher; Gloria Rademacher; Donald V. Bean;John Heyvaert;Ruth Heyvaert; Computercraft Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Bruce S.Waldo; Gwendolyn W. Waldo; Klaus P. Hendrix; Bancroft M. Tapp; Nancy Tapp;James E. Shira; Paula J. Shira; Eldon E. Beresford; Jonetta M. Beresford; DuaneH. Basse; DonnaL. Basse; Larry L. Oderkirk; Geraldine M. Odekirk; Richard Baisel; Marilyn S.Baisel; Joseph E. O'Neill; Linda O'Neill; Harold L. Davison; James L. Horn;Michael M. Conlin; Carol Ann J. Conlin; Clem Conlin; Patricia J. Conlin; RogerNeil Chisholm;Chester Leon Holmes; Lorraine W. Holmes; David E. Floyd; Mary Sue Floyd;William Kilzer; Diane Kilzer; Robert King; Karen King; Joel Larmore; SharonLarmore; James D. Donahue; Rosalie C. Donahue; Melva Jeanne Leger; Thomas M.Goettsch; Viola B.Goettsch; David E. Floyd, d/b/a B & F Properties; Randolph F. Jones; Loraine E.Jones; Rondel L. Lipps; Charles Q. Harrold; Jenifred E. Harrold; Larry H.Crist; Debra L. Crist; Henry F. Nordsiek, Jr.; James D. Njos; Edward F. CollinsII; Beda A.Collins; James C. Magestro; Jeannette M. Magestro; Ronald L. Lantz; Marjorie A.Lantz; Mario S. Sepulveda; Genene Kluck de Sepulveda; Elwin E. Mauer; ShirleyM. Mauer, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Callan, Lass & Klein, David R. Lass, Breckenridge, for petitioner.
Law Offices of William A. McGrath, William A. McGrath, Breckenridge, for respondents.
We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals in Cablevision of Breckenridge, Inc. v. Tannhauser Condominium Association, (Colo.App.No. 79CA0924, announced September 18, 1980) (not selected for official publication), which reversed the judgment of the Summit County District Court awarding the plaintiff, Cablevision of Breckenridge, Inc. (Cablevision), damages for the wrongful conversion of its subscription cable service. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand for reinstatement of the district court judgment.
This case was tried to the district court under a stipulated set of facts which included those that follow. Cablevision is a corporation engaged in providing cable television and FM radio to its subscribers in areas where the television signals are weak or nonexistent. This is a frequently encountered problem in the vicinity of Breckenridge Colorado, because the topography of the community and its distance from the originating broadcast stations generally result in an inability to receive a useful broadcast signal when using only the traditional antennas normally employed by individual households.
In order to provide its service, Cablevision constructed several antennas on a mountain peak near Breckenridge, by which it receives six television stations as well as FM radio. At the point of reception, the television signals are strong enough to reproduce a black and white picture, but are too weak to allow color reproduction. Consequently, the signals are fed into a "pre-amp," which magnifies their strength. The signals are then transmitted to a "head-end" building, located near the receiving antennas, where they are passed through a channel processor and mixer for the purpose of improving the clarity of the picture produced by the transmission. From this building, the signals are sent by coaxial cable to the "hub" facility in Breckenridge, and thence through distribution lines to the individual subscribers. Additional amplification of the signals is necessary as they are transmitted through the system, so amplifiers are installed along the distribution lines. Cablevision's capital investment in the transmission system is approximately $450,000.
The stipulated facts further establish that in October 1972 Cablevision entered into an oral agreement for the provision of subscription cable services with Judy Keller, who was acting on behalf of the owners of the condominium units comprising the Tannhauser I development in Breckenridge. The Tannhauser I building consisted of 33 condominium units, and each was to receive the Cablevision service. Pursuant to this agreement Cablevision installed the equipment necessary to provide its service to each of the units. This was accomplished by running a connecting line from the distribution system to an amplifier located inside Tannhauser I. The signals were then transmitted from this amplifier to individual wall plates serving each of the units. From January 1, 1972, through March 1974, Tannhauser I paid for the service to these 33 units at a specified rate per unit.
Effective May 1974, Cablevision ceased billing for service to 33 units and began billing for service to only three units. This was done at the request of Jerry White, whose status is not described in the stipulation but who apparently acted as a representative for the Tannhauser I owners. The stipulation reflects disagreement over the exact events leading to this change in service, but it is undisputed that the Cablevision amplifier inside Tannhauser I was removed; that White then substituted his own amplifier and connected it to the Cablevision line; and that, following May 1, television and FM radio service was still provided to all 33 units of Tannhauser I despite the payment to Cablevision for service to only three of those units. This state of affairs continued from May 1, 1974, to approximately December 1, 1976.
In the fall of 1974 a second building, known as Tannhauser II and comprised of 25 condominium units, was constructed near Tannhauser I. Cablevision was never requested to supply service to Tannhauser II. However, the new building was wired internally for cable television and FM radio, and in November 1974 White supervised and assisted in the installation of a cable between Tannhauser I and Tannhauser II enabling extension of the Cablevision service to each of the 25 units in Tannhauser II. Tannhauser II began receiving the Cablevision transmission approximately November 30, 1974. Cablevision subsequently discovered the unauthorized use of its transmission by Tannhauser I and II and terminated all service to the condominiums about December 1, 1976.
Thereafter, Cablevision brought the present action, naming the condominium associations for Tannhausers I and II and the owners of the individual condominium units as defendants. Cablevision's amended complaint contained eight claims for relief, including breach of contract, concealment, conversion, various claims of unjust enrichment, and a request for injunctive relief.
However, as part of the pre-trial stipulation of facts summarized above, the parties submitted for judicial resolution the following single stipulated issue:
Have the Defendants, or any of them, breached any contract with Plaintiff, written or oral, in fact or implied, for which Plaintiff is entitled for damages, actual or punitive?
After a hearing, the trial court entered an oral ruling incorporating the parties' stipulated facts, and holding that the defendants were liable for conversion of Cablevision's service. The parties had originally provided in their stipulation that, in the event of recovery, the damages would be $12,195, plus appropriate interest. However, the defendants advised the court subsequent to entry of the stipulation that they objected to this figure, so a further hearing was held on the question of damages. The court then entered its written judgment. The court again adopted the stipulation of the parties as its findings of fact and concluded:
(T)he plaintiff's property and services in the furnishing of cable television is a legally protected interest for which it is entitled to charge an appropriate and lawful rate to its subscribers. The defendants, through the actions stated in the Stipulation, have converted those protected interests without fully paying for them.
Based upon the damages hearing, the court entered judgment for actual damages of $11,597.50 plus statutory interest and court costs, and denied the prayer for punitive damages. The defendants then appealed.
The court of appeals reversed. It held that the trial court erred in ruling that the defendants were liable on the basis that they converted Cablevision's property interests because, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, "the only issue before the trial court was whether any defendant breached any contract with (Cablevision)." It further held that, because the stipulation did not establish the essential elements of a contract, Cablevision had not proved its breach of contract claim. Therefore, it directed the trial court to enter judgment for the defendants.
We accepted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. Cablevision contends that the propriety of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Conagra Foods, Inc.
...equitable remedy and does not depend on the existence of either an oral or written contract. See Cablevision of Breckenridge, Inc. v. Tannhauser Condo. Ass'n, 649 P.2d 1093, 1097 (Colo.1982). To state an unjust enrichment claim under Colorado law, plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendant......
-
Martinez v. Continental Enterprises
...circumstances that it would be inequitable for it to be retained without payment of its value. Cablevision of Breckenridge v. Tannhauser Condominium Association, 649 P.2d 1093 (Colo.1982); Dass v. Epplen, 162 Colo. 60, 424 P.2d 779 (1967). Here, the respondents were in possession of the Mea......
-
University of Colorado Found. v. American Cyanamid
...Cyanamid contends the undisputed facts mandate summary judgment in its favor on this cause of action. In Cablevision of Breckenridge v. Tannhauser Condominium Association, the Colorado Supreme Court stated in order to recover under a quasi-contract or unjust enrichment a plaintiff must show......
-
Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Associates
...Bus. Park Assocs., Ltd. v. County Comm'rs of Arapahoe County, 945 P.2d 395, 403 (Colo.1997); Cablevision of Breckenridge v. Tannhauser Condominium Ass'n, 649 P.2d 1093, 1097 (Colo.1982). Quantum meruit literally means "as much as [is] deserved." Black's Law Dictionary 1255 (7th ed.1999). Ac......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.3 • TRADE SECRET PROTECTION
...signal into a separate signal for each condominium unit, such that the cable signal was only paid for once, yet used multiples of times. 649 P.2d 1093 (Colo. 1982). As in International News Service and Heller, the court found that the signal was the very essence of Breckenridge Cablevision'......
-
Chapter 19 - § 19.3 • TRADE SECRET PROTECTION
...signal into a separate signal for each condominium unit, such that the cable signal was only paid for once, yet used multiples of times. 649 P.2d 1093 (Colo. 1982). As in International News Service and Heller, the court found that the signal was the very essence of Breckenridge Cablevision'......
-
Chapter 20 - § 20.3 • LITIGATON APPROACHES TO COMBATING ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
...of Restitution § 1 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst. 1937)).[184] Id. at 119.[185] Cablevision of Breckenridge, Inc. v. Tannhauser Condo. Ass'n, 649 P.2d 1093, 1097 (Colo. 1982).[186] Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Slovek, 723 P.2d 1309 (Colo. 1986).[187] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 929 (Am. Law Inst. 19......
-
Chapter 25 - § 25.3 • TYPES OF CONTRACTS
...(citing Wistrand v. Leach Realty Co., 364 P.2d 396, 397 (Colo. 1961), and Cablevision of Breckenridge, Inc. v. Tannhauser Condo. Ass'n, 649 P.2d 1093, 1097 (Colo. 1982)).[30] DCB Constr. Co. v. Central City Dev. Co., 965 P.2d 115, 119-20 (Colo. 1998).[31] CJI-Civ. § 30:16 (CLE ed. 2010).[32......