Langlois v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, No. 02CA0607.
| Docket Nº | No. 02CA0607. |
| Citation | 78 P.3d 1154 |
| Case Date | September 11, 2003 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
78 P.3d 1154
David LANGLOIS and Barbara Langlois, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants,v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF EL PASO, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee
No. 02CA0607.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.
September 11, 2003.
Vaughan & Demuro, Gordon L. Vaughan, Sara Ludke Cook, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
Opinion by Judge KAPELKE.
Defendant, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of El Paso, appeals the judgment entered by the trial court granting injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs, David Langlois and Barbara Langlois. The Board also challenges the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. By cross-appeal, plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their trespass and nuisance claims against the Board and the directed verdict for the Board on their breach of contract claim. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
This action arises from the flooding of plaintiffs' property caused by a drainage culvert built by the Ridge at Fox Run, LLC (RFR) at a new subdivision.
As a condition to the Board's approval of RFR's final plat of the subdivision, the Board and RFR entered into a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA), as provided for by § 30-28-137, C.R.S.2002, and the El Paso County subdivision regulations. Under the SIA, RFR was required to provide collateral in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee its performance in constructing improvements in accordance with specifications. The Board was to release the collateral as RFR completed the improvements to the Board's satisfaction.
RFR installed a culvert that was not included on the drainage plan for the subdivision. The culvert directed runoff from storms across plaintiffs' property, causing repeated flooding. Despite plaintiffs' complaints about the culvert's causing flooding, the Board accepted the drainage improvements and released the collateral to RFR.
Plaintiffs brought this action against RFR and the Board, asserting claims for trespass, nuisance, and breach of the SIA. They also sought an award of damages and injunctive relief mandating removal of the culvert and prohibiting the Board and RFR from trespassing on their property.
Shortly after the action was filed, the Board and RFR jointly constructed a new drainage system that routed storm water away from the culvert. Additionally, a box with a steel grate on the top was constructed over the culvert. The box prevents water from entering the culvert unless the water level becomes high enough to spill over the top of the box, which would occur if the new drainage system were to become blocked or if there were a hundred-year storm.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on each of plaintiffs' claims. In its motion, the Board argued, inter alia, that it was immune from liability for plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), § 24-10-101, et seq., C.R.S.2002.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs' trespass and nuisance claims, but denied it as to the breach of contract claim.
At trial, at the close of plaintiffs' case-in-chief, the Board moved for dismissal of the injunctive relief claim and for entry of a
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs on their trespass and nuisance claims against RFR, and the court granted an injunction requiring the Board to remove or seal the culvert. The court entered judgment accordingly.
I. Standing
Because it is a threshold issue, we first address the Board's contention that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiffs had standing to bring the claim for breach of the SIA. We reject the contention.
The SIA provides that "any purchaser of any lot in the [subdivision] shall have the authority to bring an action for injunctive relief to enforce any ... provision of this Agreement and for damages arising out of failure to adhere to any such ... provision of this Agreement."
Section 30-28-137(4), C.R.S.2002, contains provisions nearly identical with those of the SIA: "[A]ny purchaser of any lot ... in a recorded plat ... shall have the authority to bring an action for injunctive relief to enforce any ... provision of a subdivision improvements agreement and for damages arising out of failure to adhere to any such ... provision of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Hickenlooper, No. 10CA2559.
...120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992). ¶ 144 The requirements for issuing a permanent injunction are listed in Langlois v. Board of County Commissioners, 78 P.3d 1154, 1158 (Colo.App.2003). The parties seeking the permanent injunction—here the taxpayers and FFRF—must show that (1) they have succeeded on t......
-
Dallman v. Ritter, No. 09SA224.
...the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest. Langlois v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 78 P.3d 1154, 1158 12. In this Part we do not address the contribution bans imposed on labor organizations or Amendment 54's prohibition on contributions ......
-
Just in Case Bus. Lighthouse, LLC v. Murray, Court of Appeals No. 12CA1261
...to establish fraud. The trial court denied the motion. ¶ 45 Directed verdicts are disfavored. Langlois v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 78 P.3d 1154, 1157 (Colo.App.2003). A court may direct a verdict only if the evidence “compels the conclusion that reasonable people could not disagree and that no......
-
Saint John's Church in Wilderness v. Scott, No. 06CA2421.
...of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion." Langlois v. Board of County Comm'rs, 78 P.3d 1154, 1157 "A party seeking a permanent injunction must show that: (1) the party has achieved actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm will res......
-
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Hickenlooper, No. 10CA2559.
...120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992). ¶ 144 The requirements for issuing a permanent injunction are listed in Langlois v. Board of County Commissioners, 78 P.3d 1154, 1158 (Colo.App.2003). The parties seeking the permanent injunction—here the taxpayers and FFRF—must show that (1) they have succeeded on t......
-
Dallman v. Ritter, No. 09SA224.
...the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, will not adversely affect the public interest. Langlois v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 78 P.3d 1154, 1158 12. In this Part we do not address the contribution bans imposed on labor organizations or Amendment 54's prohibition on contributions ......
-
Just in Case Bus. Lighthouse, LLC v. Murray, Court of Appeals No. 12CA1261
...to establish fraud. The trial court denied the motion. ¶ 45 Directed verdicts are disfavored. Langlois v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 78 P.3d 1154, 1157 (Colo.App.2003). A court may direct a verdict only if the evidence “compels the conclusion that reasonable people could not disagree and that no......
-
Saint John's Church in Wilderness v. Scott, No. 06CA2421.
...of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion." Langlois v. Board of County Comm'rs, 78 P.3d 1154, 1157 "A party seeking a permanent injunction must show that: (1) the party has achieved actual success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm will res......