Town of Frisco v. Baum
| Decision Date | 24 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03SC181.,03SC181. |
| Citation | 90 P.3d 845 |
| Parties | TOWN OF FRISCO, Colorado, a homerule municipality, Petitioner, v. Harry BAUM, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Gorsuch Kirgis, LLP, Thad W. Renaud, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Bendelow Law Firm, P.C., Peter H. Ziemke, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.
Municipal League, Carolynne C. White, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Colorado Municipal League.
In this case, we consider the authority of a home rule city to create and define the jurisdiction of a municipal court. We find that the Colorado Constitution authorizes town councils of the home rule cities to create municipal courts and define the jurisdiction of those courts as long as it is limited to matters of local and municipal concern.
This case arises from a decision of the Frisco town council to approve a conditional land use development application. Respondent, Harry Baum, who lived next to the property approved for development, filed a complaint pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) in the Summit County District Court challenging the town council's authority to consider and decide on the application. Baum sought an order vacating the decision of the town council.
The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It held that the town charter of Frisco granted the Frisco municipal court "exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters arising under this Charter, the ordinances, and other enactments of the Town," including Respondent's land use claims. The district court found that article XX, section 6, of the Colorado Constitution authorizes the town to grant such jurisdiction to its municipal court. The district court therefore dismissed the complaint and granted the Town of Frisco's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court of appeals reversed the district court, holding that although the town council generally has the authority to set the jurisdiction of its municipal courts, there are limits on that power. The court of appeals reasoned that by granting exclusive original jurisdiction for all claims arising under its charter, ordinances, and other enactments, the town attempted to remove jurisdiction from the district courts. Finding that the jurisdiction of the state courts is of statewide concern, the court of appeals held that the town did not have authority to divest the district courts of original jurisdiction over all such claims. Thus, the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the district court.
The Town of Frisco then petitioned this court for certiorari, which we granted.1 We now reverse the court of appeals and remand with directions to reinstate the order of the district court.
The town council of Frisco vested its municipal court with "exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters arising under [Frisco's Town] Charter, the ordinances, and other enactments of the Town." The question before us is whether that grant of jurisdiction was a proper exercise of municipal authority under the Colorado Constitution. We decide that the town council acted within the powers granted to it by the Colorado Constitution. First, our constitution delineates the boundaries of the powers of municipalities in our state. The constitution grants to municipalities great authority over matters of local and municipal concern as well as the power to create courts with jurisdiction over such matters. Second, our statutes and case law reinforce the grant of power to municipalities within the realm of local and municipal matters. Because the town council of Frisco did not exceed the limits of this authority by granting the Frisco municipal court exclusive original jurisdiction over matters of local concern arising under enactments of the town council, we reverse.
Municipal court jurisdiction is grounded in our constitution. The Colorado Constitution specifically provides for municipal courts and authorizes town councils to define the limits of that jurisdiction within the province of local and municipal matters. The General Assembly has reinforced this authority by providing a statutory framework to guide municipal courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction. Thus, we find that a municipality's authority to create a municipal court and to define its jurisdiction is firmly rooted in our law.
Initially, we note that we must consider the constitution as a whole and give effect to every part. "[I]t is essential that we take the Constitution as it is, including every part thereof relating to the subject-matter under consideration, and construe the instrument as a whole, causing it, including the amendments thereto, to harmonize, giving to every word as far as possible its appropriate meaning and effect." Dixon v. People, 53 Colo. 527, 530, 127 P. 930, 932 (1912); see also People ex rel. Graves v. Dist. Court, 37 Colo. 443, 450, 86 P. 87, 89 (1906) (); Reale v. Bd. of Real Estate Appraisers, 880 P.2d 1205, 1208 (Colo.1994) ().
Several provisions of our constitution relate to the power of home rule municipalities to determine the jurisdiction of their courts. When analyzed as a whole, these constitutional provisions clearly provide home rule cities the power to define the jurisdiction of their municipal courts. First, article XX, section 6, grants home rule cities the power to "provide, regulate, conduct, and control. . . the creation of municipal courts: the definition and regulation of the jurisdiction, powers and duties thereof." This section authorizes home rule cities to establish municipal courts. Further, it allows the home rule city to define the jurisdiction of its municipal court within the realm of local and municipal matters. Specifically, article XX, section 6, states that municipalities shall have the power to create a municipal court and to define its jurisdiction. A home rule city or town shall have:
Colo. Const. Art. XX, § 6. In essence, this section gives municipalities all the powers of the General Assembly with regard to local and municipal matters.
Two additional sections in the constitution support this grant of authority to the municipal court. Article VI, section 9, grants the district courts original jurisdiction over civil matters "except as otherwise provided herein." Next, article VI, section 1, establishes general jurisdiction in the district courts, but notes that such a grant of jurisdiction shall not "restrict or diminish the powers of home rule cities and towns granted under article XX, section 6 of this constitution to create municipal and police courts." Thus, taken together with the grant of authority in article XX, section 6, these provisions unmistakably grant home rule municipalities the power to define the jurisdiction of their courts.
Statutory enactments clarify the constitutional grant of authority to municipal courts.2 §§ 13-10-101-13-10-125, 5 C.R.S. (2003). Section 13-10-104 provides that "[t]he municipal governing body of each city or town shall create a municipal court to hear and try all alleged violations of ordinance provisions of such city or town." The municipal governing body shall appoint a judge who, if the municipal court is a court of record,3 must be admitted to and licensed in the practice of law in Colorado. §§ 13-10-105, 13-10-102(3). Appeals may be taken from a qualified municipal court of record to the district court pursuant to section 13-6-310. Section 13-6-310(1) directs the district court to review the record made in the municipal court. The district court may then affirm, reverse, remand, or modify the judgment, remand the case for a new trial, or direct that the case be tried de novo before the district court. § 13-6-310(2). Consistent with the constitutional grant of authority, this statutory structure provides a framework for the exercise of municipal jurisdiction.
Both our constitution and our statutes authorize municipalities to exercise jurisdiction over local and municipal matters. Consequently, we hold that the Town of Frisco possesses the authority to define and exercise jurisdiction as long as it limits its jurisdiction to matters of local and municipal concern. We will examine the particulars of those limitations next.
Necessarily, the constitution limits the authority of municipal courts to local and municipal matters so that there is not a conflict between the jurisdiction of state courts and that of municipal courts. Our case law provides examples of the limits of a municipal court's jurisdiction. First, a municipal court can only exercise jurisdiction over matters that are of local or municipal concern. Second, within the sphere of matters of local and municipal concern, a municipal court may only exercise the jurisdiction granted to it in a town charter or ordinances. When the municipal court attempts to exercise jurisdiction over matters outside either of those categories, we have found them to be exceeding their authority.
First, municipal town councils must limit the jurisdiction of their courts to local and municipal matters. In City & County of Denver v. Bridwell, 122 Colo. 520, 524, 224 P.2d 217, 218 (1950), for example, we held that a home rule city's ordinance, which attempted to reserve power in the municipality to change the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley
...statewide concerns, the municipality's exercise of that prerogative is not outside the bounds of its authority. Cf. Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845, 849 (Colo.2004) (holding that a municipality may exercise its jurisdiction to address local and municipal matters in municipal court — eve......
-
Barber v. Town of La Veta
...but not if her actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. A Colorado Supreme Court decision, Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845 (Colo. 2004), while not directly on point, is quite helpful in thinking about this issue. There, the court was presented with the question of......
-
Town of Avon v. Weststar Bank
...us. I. As an initial matter, we address the bank's contention that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Relying on Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845 (Colo.2004), the bank contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as does this court. We The Baum court held th......
-
Olson v. Hillside Community Church Sbc
...upon a void judgment). During the pendency of this litigation, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its opinion in Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845 (Colo.2004). In Baum, the supreme court addressed the issue whether a home rule city possessed authority under the Colorado Constitution to ......
-
Municipal Courts in Colorado: Practice and Procedure
...(Aug. 2006), available for purchase at www.cml.org. 2. CML, "2008-"09 Annual Report," available at www.cml.org. 3. Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845 (Colo. 2004). 4. CRS § 13-10-104. 5. CRS § 13-10-103. 6. There are municipal courts in the following Colorado cities: Alamosa, Arriba, Arvad......
-
Civil Jurisdiction in Colorado's Muncipal Courts: All of Colorado's Courts Are the People's Courts - August 2007 - Just Wondering (right Column)
...Supp.). 3. Denver Charter §§ 4.2.1 and 4.2.6. 4. Broomfield Charter § 10.2, Broomfield City Code, Chapter 2-28. 5. Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845 (Colo. 6. Id. at 850, n.5. 7. Id. at 846. 8. Littleton City Charter § 58. 9. Colo. Const. art. X, § 20, cl. 9. (c) 2007 The Colorado Lawyer ......
-
Becoming a Colorado Municipal Court Judge
...[1] CRS § 13-10-113(1)(a). [2] CRS § 13-10-116(2). [3] Colo. Const. art. XX § 6; CRS § 13-10-104. [4] See, e.g., Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845, 846 (Colo. 2004) (upholding Frisco’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction over land use development applications to its municipal courts). [5] See......