Doyle v. Linn, 75--131

Citation37 Colo.App. 214, 547 P.2d 257
Case DateDecember 18, 1975
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

Page 257

547 P.2d 257
37 Colo.App. 214
James P. DOYLE and Florene A. Doyle, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Kurt O. LINN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 75--131.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.
Dec. 18, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1976.

Page 258

Richeson & McCain, Robert C. McCain, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Albert B. Dawkins, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.

James and Florene Doyle sought recovery of damages resulting from an allegedly negligent survey made by defendant, Kurt O. Linn. Following a trial to the court, it found that the defendant was negligent and that plaintiffs had been substantially damaged as a result of such negligence. [37 Colo.App. 215] However, the court dismissed the action on the ground that the action was barred by the operation of two statutes of limitations, §§ 13--80--110 and 13--80--127, C.R.S.1973, and plaintiffs appeal that dismissal. Appellee has confessed that § 13--80--127, 1973, is inapplicable because the claim for relief arose prior to June 1, 1969, the effective date of that statute. Colo.Sess.Laws 1969, ch. 221, 87--1--28, at 697. See Greene v. Green Acres Construction Co., Colo.App., 543 P.2d 108 (announced September 23, 1975). Therefore the sole issue before this court is whether the action was barred by § 13--80--110, C.R.S.1973. We hold that it was not and reverse the judgment.

In 1960 the Doyles engaged Linn to prepare a boundary survey of a parcel of mountain property that they were considering buying. Linn knew that the Doyles had selected a site for a home they proposed to build and would buy the property if the site was actually within the plot's boundaries. In September 1960 Linn surveyed and staked the boundaries, and delivered a certified plat to the Doyles. According to this survey, the desired homesite was within the boundaries of the plot. In reliance on the survey, the Doyles bought the land and began building their house in November 1960. The house was not completed until 1970.

The land adjacent to the Doyle plot on the north is owned by the United States, being part of the Pike National Forest. In 1964 government agents began negotiating with the Doyles for permission to widen an access road to the National Forest, which road crossed the Doyle land. During the discussions, the agents advised the Doyles that there was a possibility that their house was on government land. In November 1964 the Bureau of Land Management (B.L.M.) began a 'dependent survey' of the boundary line. The survey was completed in June 1965, and was officially accepted and approved by the B.L.M. on February 1, 1968. According to this survey the Doyle house was on government land.

In October 1968 the United States sued the Doyles in the U.S. District Court for trespass, and obtained a judgment which gave the Doyles 90 days to remove the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • City of Aurora, Colorado v. Bechtel Corp., 77-1858
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 29, 1979
    ...than when the first hairline cracks in the soil appeared. Arguably, the Colorado appellate courts applied this rule in Doyle v. Linn, 37 Colo.App. 214, 547 P.2d 257 (1975). The third rule, and that urged by the Cities, holds that the statute of limitations begins to run when the injured par......
  • Brodeur v. American Home Assur. Co., 06SC499.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • October 9, 2007
    ...mistakenly relies on Doyle v. Linn for the proposition that an injury cannot be "known" until the conclusion of underlying litigation. 37 Colo.App. 214, 216, 547 P.2d 257, 259 (1975). Doyle involved the interpretation of section 13-80-110, C.R.S. (1973), which established a six-year statute......
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Samora, Court of Appeals No. 12CA0872
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • July 3, 2013
    ...acts of Libby, her causes of action against Saxon Mortgage also accrued in December 2005. ¶ 28 Samora's reliance on Doyle v. Linn, 37 Colo.App. 214, 547 P.2d 257 (1975), is misplaced. In Doyle, a division of this court concluded that the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' ......
  • Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., SCHUSTER-GRAHAM
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • January 9, 1978
    ...that an indemnification action would be necessary. We have not previously addressed this specific question. Cf. Doyle v. Linn, Colo., 547 P.2d 257 (1976); Williams v. Carr, 4 Colo.App. 363, 36 P. 644 (1894). The virtually universal rule is that a claim for indemnity does not accrue, and the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT