Durnford v. City of Thornton
Decision Date | 06 April 1971 |
Docket Number | 24178,Nos. 71--049,s. 71--049 |
Citation | 483 P.2d 977,29 Colo.App. 349 |
Parties | Gerald J. DURNFORD et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The CITY OF THORNTON, a Municipal corporation, State of Colorado, and West Adams County Fire Protection District, a Quasi-Municipal corporation, Defendants in Error. . I |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Martin P. Miller, James J. Moran, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Orrel A. Daniel, Leonard H. McCain and Edward A. Brown, Brighton, Mitchem & Perlmutter, Allen P. Mitchem, Denver, for defendant in error City of Thornton.
Gaunt, Byrne & Dirrim, Lysle R. Dirrim, Brighton, for defendant in error West Adams County Fire Protection District.
This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.
The parties appear here in the same order as they appeared below; they will be referred to as plaintiffs, City, Fire District, or by name.
Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment by the trial court upon its determination that there was no genuine material issue of fact in dispute. The record reflects that the City of Thornton owns and operates a water system located in the West Adams County Fire Protection District. This system includes numerous fire hydrants and a supporting water supply. Some hydrants are located outside the City limits but within the District. There is no indication in the record, nor is there any allegation, that the West Adams County Fire Protection District at any time owned or operated either fire hydrants or a water system.
In December of 1965, the City of Thornton passed Ordinance No. 228 concerning the rates for fire hydrant rentals and declaring an emergency. The ordinance reads in part as follows:
'On and after January 1, 1966, and in accordance with engineering recommendations as to the cost of providing water service to the fire hydrants connected to the water system, there is hereby imposed the following rates and charges:
'(a) For all fire hydrants located inside the City of Thornton a fire hydrant rental charge of $6.50 per hydrant per month, payable quarterly, said rental payments to be due and payable from the General Fund of the City.
'(b) For all customers of the City's water utility located outside the City of Thornton, to defray the costs of providing water services to fire hydrants located outside the City limits, there shall be added to each monthly bill of each customer the sum of fifty cents ($.50).
'(c) Said revenue, as collected, to be segregated from all other charges and used by the City to defray the cost of providing water services to said fire hydrants.'
Plaintiffs in this action were nonresidents of the City of Thornton and had been for some time prior to enactment of the ordinance in question. They resided within the boundaries of the West Adams County Fire Protection District. According to the City's affidavits and exhibits incorporated therein, 24 plaintiffs were under contract for water and sewer service with the City. Only two of said water and sewer contracts were entered into subsequent to January 1, 1966, the effective date of Ordinance No. 228. These contracts provide, in part, as follows:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *'
The City's affidavits also indicated that after the enactment of the ordinance in question explanatory information was mailed to each customer residing outside the City limits, and each plaintiff under contract with the City paid the 50cents per month charge for fire hydrant service without protest.
In May of 1968, plaintiffs filed a complaint which alleged, among other things, that Ordinance No. 228 was illegal, void, and contrary to the applicable Colorado statutes. The Fire District was made a third party defendant in the action.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment under R.C.P.Colo. 56, on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact to be tried. The motion was thereafter supported by affidavits from the City's Utilities Department Office Manager and the City Clerk. Incorporated into these affidavits were the above mentioned contracts executed by the City and plaintiffs, applicable ordinances and other documents containing factual information pertinent to the action. Plaintiffs submitted no counter-affidavits but elected instead to rely upon the allegations in their complaint.
The trial court ruled in favor of defendants on the motion. Plaintiffs assign as error the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant, and contend that there were material and genuine issues of fact for determination.
Plaintiffs contend the charges imposed upon plaintiffs were not assessments for fire hydrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Witcher v. Canon City
...to accept the affidavit as true. Central Bank v. Robinson, 137 Colo. 409, 419, 326 P.2d 82, 88 (1958); Durnford v. City of Thornton, 29 Colo.App. 349, 354, 483 P.2d 977, 979 (1971); C.R.C.P. For the reasons stated above, we reject plaintiffs' claim, and hold that the trial court's finding t......
-
Bauer v. Southwest Denver Mental Health Center, Inc., 82CA0906
...under C.R.C.P. 56. Thus, it was unnecessary for plaintiff to provide affidavits on the causation issue. See Durnford v. City of Thornton, 29 Colo.App. 349, 483 P.2d 977 (1971). Accordingly, the trial court was obliged to treat the allegations of plaintiff's complaint as true. Since the comp......
-
Miller v. Van Newkirk
...genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Durnford v. City of Thornton, 29 Colo.App. 349, 483 P.2d 977 (1971). Once the moving party shows specific facts probative of his right to judgment, it becomes necessary for the non-m......
-
Meyer v. Schwartz, 80CA1271
...of a right to judgment, the non-moving party must demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Durnford v. City of Thornton, 29 Colo.App. 349, 483 P.2d 977 (1971). If there is no counter-showing, the trial court has no alternative but to conclude that no facts remain to be determ......
-
Rule 56 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RULINGS ON QUESTIONS OF LAW.
...necessary for the nonmoving party to set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Durnford v. City of Thornton, 29 Colo. App. 349, 483 P.2d 977 (1971); Fort Collins Motor Homes, Inc. v. City of Ft. Collins, 30 Colo. App. 445, 496 P.2d 1074 (1972); Meyer v. Schwartz, 638 ......
-
A Litigator's Guide to Summary Judgments
...Forster, 650 P.2d 1315 (Colo.App. 1982). 24. Heller v. First National Bank, 657 P.2d 992 (Colo.App. 1982); Durnford v. City of Thornton, 29 Colo.App. 349, 483 P.2d 977 (1971); Ginter, note 13, supra. 25. Ginter, supra, note 13, at 585 where the court warned: Obviously, it is perilous for th......
-
The Civil Litigator
...or the same information in pre-trial orders. Colorado Local Court Rules (1978). 9. C.R.C.P. 56(e). 10. Durnford v. Thornton, 29 Colo. App. 349, 483 P.2d 977 (1971); Norton v. Dartmouth Skis, Inc., 147 Colo. 436, 364 P.2d 866 (1961); Sullivan v. Davis, 172 Colo. 490, 474 P.2d 218 (1970); 6 (......