Gifford v. City of Colorado Springs, 90CA0944

Citation815 P.2d 1008
Decision Date05 July 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90CA0944,90CA0944
PartiesLeslie GIFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, Defendant-Appellee. . III
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

Page 1008

815 P.2d 1008
Leslie GIFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
The CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 90CA0944.
Colorado Court of Appeals,
Div. III.
July 5, 1991.

Page 1010

Robert J. Mason, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hall & Evans, Alan Epstein, Catherine A.G. Sparkman and Walter S. Rouse, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion by Judge TURSI.

In this inverse condemnation and trespass action, plaintiff, Leslie Gifford, appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, the City of Colorado Springs (City). We affirm.

The following undisputed facts are distilled from the record. Dominion Executive Club, Ltd., owned a parcel of improved real property in Colorado Springs located on the southeast corner of an intersection bounded by Garden of the Gods Road to the north and Northpark Drive to the west. The building improvements that occupy a portion of the lot includes an attached ground floor restaurant.

The intersection on which Dominion's property is located was targeted for a City public works grading, road-widening, and railroad overpass project to begin in late 1984 and end in mid-1986. Consequently, on August 15, 1984, the City's appraiser valued Dominion's property for purposes of Phase I of the project.

The appraisal estimates the value of a strip of Dominion's land which the City wished to acquire for the project and estimates the damages resulting to the remainder of the property as a result of the desired taking. It also includes a description of the restaurant as an improvement and notes that the improvements will not be altered by the taking. Also, the appraiser's affidavit states that the leasehold interest was considered during his valuation of the property, and independent evidence in the record corroborates that the City knew of plaintiff's intention to lease the property at the time the appraisal was conducted.

One week following the appraisal, Dominion leased the restaurant portion of the interior of its building to plaintiff. The lease agreement grants concessions to plaintiff expressly owing to the public works project, including rent-free occupancy for six months, subsequent rent abatements during the remainder of the construction project, and extensive renovation of the premises.

In October 1984, Dominion agreed to sell the City a strip of its unimproved property on the west boundary of the lot which parallels Northpark Drive. The land was acquired by the City as right-of-way for its project, and, in accordance with the appraised value, Dominion received the sum of $92,106 for the taking as compensation for the land actually taken and damages for diminution in value to the remainder. The interior of the building was not involved in the taking.

In Phase II of the road project, less than a year later, the City purchased another strip of Dominion's unimproved property which bounds the north edge of the property along Garden of the Gods Road. This right-of-way was acquired for the sum of $21,841, and the building interior was not involved in this taking. However, in response to plaintiff's subsequent complaint that this taking eliminated certain parking spaces, the City issued a change order authorizing its contractor, at the City's expense, to build additional parking spaces on the northeast corner of Dominion's property.

During construction of the road improvements, vehicular traffic at the intersection was detoured and access to businesses at or near the intersection was obstructed. Two former points of access to plaintiff's restaurant were permanently closed as a result of the project. However, access to the restaurant was provided at all times either by a third access point on Northpark Drive or by a frontage road.

Page 1011

Plaintiff abandoned his leasehold interest in January of 1986. That following October, plaintiff filed inverse condemnation and trespass claims against the City, alleging damages resulting to his business and leasehold interest as a result of its takings....

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • County of Clark v. Sun State Properties
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2003
    ...468 P.2d 8, 10-11 (1970)). 13. See, e.g., Harco Drug, Inc. v. Notsla, Inc., 382 So.2d 1, 5-6 (Ala.1980); Gifford v. City of Colorado Springs, 815 P.2d 1008, 1011 (Colo.Ct.App. 1991); J.J. Newberry Co. v. City of East Chicago, 441 N.E.2d 39, 43 (Ind.Ct.App.1982); City of Manhattan v. Kent, 2......
  • James H. Moore & Associates Realty, Inc. v. Arrowhead at Vail
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1994
    ...therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo.1988); Gifford v. City of Colorado Sprinqs, 815 P.2d 1008 (Colo.App.1991). In order to make this determination, we must resolve all doubts as to the existence of material factual issues aga......
  • Perry v. Board of County Com'rs of Larimer County, 96CA0956
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1997 Failure of the opposing party to satisfy its burden entitles the moving party to summary judgment. Gifford v. City of Colorado Springs, 815 P.2d 1008 (Colo.App.1991). In addition, arguments or evidence not presented to the trial court in connection with a motion for summary judgment ......
  • Perkins Whistlestop, Inc. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • November 25, 1997
    ...condemnation action or appeal. See State of Tennessee ex rel. Shaw v. Shofner, 573 S.W.2d 169 (Tenn.App.1978); Gifford v. City of Colorado Springs, 815 P.2d 1008 (Colo.App.1991); Barber v. State, 703 So.2d 314 (Ala.1997).4 For example, it would be incongruous for ODOT to appeal the taking i......
  • 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