Town of Minturn v. Sensible Hous. Co.
| Citation | 273 P.3d 1154,2012 CO 23 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10SC670.,10SC670. |
| Parties | TOWN OF MINTURN, Colorado; Ginn Battle North, LLC; Ginn Battle South, LLC; and Ginn–LA Battle One Ltd., LLLP, Petitioners v. SENSIBLE HOUSING CO., INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Berg Hill, Greenleaf & Ruscitti LLP, Josh A. Marks, Heidi C. Potter, Boulder, Colorado, Sarah J. Baker, P.C., Sarah J. Baker, Edwards, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioners Ginn Battle North, LLC; Ginn Battle South, LLC; and Ginn–LA Battle One Ltd., LLLP.
Allen C. Christensen, Attorney at Law, P.C., Allen C. Christensen, Edwards, Colorado, Holland & Hart LLP, Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr., Aspen, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner Town of Minturn.
Appel & Lucas, P.C., Garry R. Appel, James P. Eckels, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.Rachel L. Allen, Denver, Colorado, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League.Justice HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 We granted certiorari in this case to review the court of appeals' decision in Sensible Housing Co., Inc. v. Town of Minturn, No. 09CA1824, 2010 WL 3259829 (Colo.App. Aug. 19, 2010).1 The court of appeals voided nine annexation ordinances adopted by the Town of Minturn, ruling that, under priority of jurisdiction, Minturn should have stayed its annexation actions in the face of a prior-commenced and ongoing quiet title action regarding a disputed portion of the annexed property. We disagree and reverse.
¶ 2 In 2008, Minturn enacted annexation ordinances for nine parcels of property in response to annexation petitions filed in 2005, which claimed that Ginn (petitioners in this action) was the 100% owner of the land proposed to be annexed. Ginn and Sensible Housing Co. (respondent in this action) were involved in a quiet title action concerning portions of the annexed property, which commenced before Ginn filed the annexation petitions. Sensible sought judicial review of the annexation pursuant to section 31–12–116, C.R.S. (2011), asserting that Minturn exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by approving the annexation of the property without an election, due to the ongoing dispute as to the property's title. The court of appeals agreed and applied the “priority pule” to the annexation proceedings, which states that “when more than one court can exercise jurisdiction over a matter, ‘the court first acquiring jurisdiction [over] the parties and the subject matter has exclusive jurisdiction.’ ” Sensible Housing Co., 2010 WL 3259829, at *4 (quoting Martin v. Dist. Court, 150 Colo. 577, 579, 375 P.2d 105, 106 (1962)).2 The court of appeals voided the annexation, reasoning that Minturn should have stayed the annexation proceedings pending the outcome of the quiet title litigation. Id. at *4–5. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
¶ 3 We hold that the priority rule only applies as between competing judicial proceedings and the court of appeals erred in applying the rule to the annexation, a legislative action. We return this case to the court of appeals for remand to the district court with directions to stay judicial review of the annexation proceedings pending the outcome of the quiet title litigation.
¶ 4 Since 1998, Petitioners Ginn Battle North, LLC, Ginn Battle South, LLC, and Ginn–LA Battle One Ltd., LLLP (collectively, “Ginn”) and Respondent, Sensible Housing Co. (“Sensible”) have been involved in ongoing quiet title litigation regarding the ownership of two parcels of property located in Eagle County, Colorado (“quiet title action”).
¶ 5 In November 2005, Ginn filed nine petitions requesting that the Town of Minturn annex nine parcels of property totaling approximately 4300 acres, including portions of property at issue in the quiet title action. Each petition expressly identified a Ginn entity as the 100% owner of the pertinent parcel. Sensible objected to the annexation by letter on December 13, 2005, asserting that because of the ongoing dispute over title to portions of the annexed property, Ginn was not the 100% owner of those parcels.
¶ 6 On December 21, 2005, Minturn found Ginn's annexation petitions to be in substantial compliance with applicable statutory and constitutional requirements, and held public hearings on the potential annexation between February 2006 and February 2008. Sensible objected again in August 2006, reiterating that title to the property was in dispute. Nevertheless, on February 28, 2008, Minturn approved the proposed annexations through nine annexation ordinances. Each annexing ordinance explicitly found that the petitioning Ginn entity was the 100% owner of the applicable parcel and, consequently, an election by landowners was not required under article II, section 30 of the Colorado Constitution or section 31–12–107(2), C.R.S. (2011) of the Annexation Act. Sensible then filed a motion to reconsider the annexation ordinances, which was denied.
¶ 7 On April 25, 2008, Sensible filed its initial complaint in the immediate action, seeking judicial review of the annexation ordinances pursuant to section 31–12–116, C.R.S. (2011) (“annexation judicial review proceeding”). 3 Sensible asserted that Minturn had exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by approving the annexation of the property without an election due to the ongoing dispute as to the property's title.
¶ 8 Meanwhile, the quiet title action proceeded before the trial court, and on June 3, 2009, the court granted partial summary judgment to Ginn for both disputed parcels, holding that Sensible had presented no evidence supporting its claim to title of the property (“quiet title order”). The court of appeals affirmed as to one of the two parcels but reversed as to the other parcel, remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Ginn Battle Lender, LLC v. Sensible Housing Co., Inc., Nos. 10CA0114 & 10CA2158, slip op. at 11, 21, 2011 WL 1590536 (Colo.App. April 21, 2011). That case is currently on remand before the trial court.4
¶ 9 Following entry of the quiet title order, but before the order's appeal, the district court in the annexation judicial review proceeding requested status reports from Ginn and Sensible to determine whether that order—granting summary judgment to Ginn on the grounds that Sensible had put forth no evidence to support its claim of title—had any effect upon the annexation judicial review proceeding. After receiving the reports of both parties, the district court on July 21, 2009 issued an order dismissing the annexation judicial review proceeding (“dismissal order”).
¶ 10 The district court reasoned that, because the quiet title order established that Sensible did not have title to the disputed properties, Sensible had no standing to petition for review of the annexation.5 The district court thus dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1).
¶ 11 Sensible appealed the dismissal order, arguing that (1) the district court erred in dismissing the annexation judicial review proceeding based solely on the quiet title order because neither claim nor issue preclusion applied to that order; (2) the trial court's decision in the quiet title action did not render the annexation judicial review proceeding moot; and (3) the district court erred in dismissing the annexation judicial review proceeding on the ground Sensible lacked standing. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal order on two principal grounds. First, it held that the district court erred in relying upon the quiet title order to determine that Sensible lacked standing and the court lacked jurisdiction because the quiet title order had been appealed and could not be considered final for issue or claim preclusion purposes at that time. Sensible Housing Co., 2010 WL 3259829, at *1–2. Second, it held that Sensible's challenge to the annexation process may not be moot, depending on the outcome of the appeal of the quiet title order.6 Id. at *3.
¶ 12 The court of appeals remanded the case with directions to vacate the annexation ordinances related to the disputed property and stay any further annexation proceedings with respect to that property pending the outcome of the quiet title action. Id. at *5. The court sua sponte applied the priority rule to the annexation proceedings, which states that “when more than one court can exercise jurisdiction over a matter, ‘the court first acquiring jurisdiction [over] the parties and the subject matter has exclusive jurisdiction’ ” (“priority rule”). Id. at *4 (internal citations omitted). The court reasoned that, because the quiet title action commenced before the annexation proceedings and both actions concerned the same property, the priority rule required Minturn to await the outcome of the quiet title litigation before making any determination about the ownership of the annexed property. Id. at *3. We disagree.
¶ 13 We hold that the priority rule only applies as between competing judicial proceedings and the court of appeals erred in applying the rule to the annexation, a legislative action. We return this case to the court of appeals for remand to the district court with directions to stay judicial review of the annexation proceedings pending the outcome of the quiet title litigation.
¶ 14 Application of the priority rule to a legislative proceeding is a question that we review de novo. See People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 178 (Colo.2006) (); Colo. Dep't of Revenue v. Hibbs, 122 P.3d 999, 1002 (Colo.2005) ().
B.
Annexations are Legislative in Nature
¶ 15 Providing procedures for the setting of municipal boundaries, whether by incorporation or annexation, is a prerogative of the General Assembly. City of Greenwood Vill. v. Petitioners for the Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427, 433 (Colo.2000)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commandeer Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Allegro
...explicitly rejected the application of the prior jurisdiction rule to annexation proceedings ( see Town of Minturn v. Sensible Hous. Co., 2012 CO 23, *13, 273 P.3d 1154 [Sup.Ct. Colorado 2012] [“We hold that the priority rule only applies as between competing judicial proceedings and the co......
-
Commandeer Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Allegro
...explicitly rejected the application of the prior jurisdiction rule to annexation proceedings (see Town of Minturn v. Sensible Hous. Co., 2012 CO 23, *13, 273 P.3d 1154 [Sup.Ct. Colorado 2012] [“We hold that the priority rule only applies as between competing judicial proceedings and the cou......
-
Battle N., LLC v. Sensible Hous. Co.
...filed has priority of jurisdiction, and ... the second action must be stayed until the first is finally determined." Town of Minturn v. Sensible Hous. Co., 2012 CO 23, ¶ 19, 273 P.3d 1154. "The purpose of the priority rule is to promote judicial efficiency and ‘avoid unnecessary duplication......
-
Banning Lewis Ranch Co. v. City of Colo. Springs (In re Banning Lewis Ranch Co.), Bankruptcy Case No. 10-13445 KJC.
...31–12–101 et seq., the Annexation Agreement became a legislative act that set the boundaries of the City. SeeTown of Minturn v. Sensible Housing Co., 273 P.3d 1154, 1159 (Colo.2012) (“[A]nnexations are legislative proceedings.”).8 At that point, the Annexation Agreement was no longer a cont......