Williams v. Stirling

Decision Date16 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-106,77-106
PartiesKathryn E. WILLIAMS and Colorado National Bank of Denver, as Executors of the Estate of Henry P. Williams, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John M. STIRLING, Defendant-Appellee, Arrowhead Land Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Sunlight Ranch Co., a/k/a Sunlight, a Colorado Corporation, and the First National Bank of Glenwood Springs, a National Banking Corporation, Berenice McDonald, as the Public Trustee of Garfield County, Colorado, and all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action, Defendants. . I
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

Petre, Zimmerman & Shelton, P.C., Dan Kerst, Robert Zimmerman, Glenwood Springs, for plaintiffs-appellants.

William D. Jochems, Gerald D. Hartert, Glenwood Springs, for defendant-appellee.

ENOCH, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment entered in an action to quiet title to 240 acres of real estate located in Garfield County. We affirm.

During 1964 and 1965, plaintiffs' predecessor in interest, John Higgs, acquired 810 acres which included the land in question. In 1965, in exchange for corporate stock, Higgs deeded 190 acres to Sunlight Ranch Co., a corporation formed in January 1965, for the purpose of constructing and operating a ski area. Higgs served as Sunlight's promoter, president, director, and general manager from the time of Sunlight's inception until his removal as president and general manager on December 30, 1968.

On October 23, 1968, Higgs entered into a written agreement with Arrowhead Corp. whereby Higgs would convey 240 acres of land to Arrowhead, reserving to Sunlight certain easements, in consideration for $75,000 cash, stock, payment of certain surveying costs, and Arrowhead's participation in a land development program in conjunction with Sunlight and operation of Sunlight's Ski area. Upon execution of the agreement, $10,000 was paid, and Arrowhead stock was transferred. The remaining $65,000 was to be paid in 10 equal annual installments, with the obligation to be evidenced by a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. On November 26, 1968, Higgs conveyed to Arrowhead by deed approximately 120 of the 240 acres, reserving unto himself, his successors or assigns, the easements which he had earlier designated were to go to Sunlight. The promissory note and deed of trust were never executed. In 1969, judgment in an unrelated action was entered against Arrowhead, pursuant to which an execution issued, and all 240 acres which were the subject of the Higgs-Arrowhead agreement, deeded as well as undeeded, were sold to defendant Stirling at a sheriff's sale. On October 26, 1970, a sheriff's deed covering the entire 240 acres was issued to Stirling.

On June 8, 1973, plaintiffs acquired their interests in the 240 acres in a series of transactions: First, three persons who had acquired Higgs' remaining property conveyed their interests therein to plaintiffs; second, Higgs conveyed to plaintiffs all his interests in the undeeded portion of the original 810 acres owned by him, including all real estate covered by the Arrowhead agreement as well as the easements reserved in the Arrowhead deed; third, Higgs assigned all his interest in the Higgs-Arrowhead agreement to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs brought this action to determine the rights of the respective parties in the 240 acres. Sunlight was made a party defendant to the action. Sunlight claimed one easement over the disputed acreage, a 3.44 acre area designated as the Ute Ski Trail, which had been constructed in 1966 at Higgs' direction with Sunlight's funds, and which had been continually used in connection with the Sunlight Ski Area since the opening of its initial ski season in 1966-67.

The trial court found that Sunlight acquired title to the easements reserved by Higgs in the deed to Arrowhead via a passive trust, but that Sunlight, through statements made in briefs and at trial, had expressly abandoned them, except for the Ute Ski Trail easement. Consequently, the easements were held to be extinguished. The court held Stirling to be the owner in fee simple of the deeded 120 acres, subject, however, to Sunlight's Ute Ski Trail easement, plaintiffs' vendor's lien to secure the payment of $65,000 principal plus interest, and "any other rights which may still be valid and subsisting in plaintiffs as assignees of the rights to John Higgs under the October 23, 1968 agreement." Conversely, plaintiffs were held to be the owners of the undeeded 120 acres, subject to Sunlight's Ute Ski Trail easement and "an obligation to convey such property to (Stirling) upon payment in full of the obligation secured by the vendor's lien, . . . as that obligation may be modified by other rights which may still be valid and subsisting in plaintiffs as assignees of the rights of John Higgs under the October 23, 1968 agreement."

This appeal concerns the ownership of the easements on both the 120 acres deeded...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • TA Pelsue Co. v. Grand Enterprises, Inc., Civ. A. No. 89-S-1645.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • June 25, 1991
    ...in competition with and necessarily having an injurious or detrimental effect upon the corporation's business. Williams v. Stirling, 40 Colo.App. 463, 583 P.2d 290, 292 (1978). Similarly, a high-ranking employee of a corporation, whether a director or not, owes a duty of loyalty to the corp......
  • Acorn v. Moncecchi
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 22, 2016
    ...(D. Colo. 1994) (citing T.A. Pelsue Co. v. Grand Enterprises, Inc. , 782 F.Supp. 1476, 1485 (D. Colo. 1991) ; Williams v. Stirling , 40 Colo.App. 463, 583 P.2d 290, 292 (1978) ). The Astarte court explained that a party claiming breach of fiduciary duty through the appropriation of a busine......
  • Astarte, Inc. v. Pacific Indus. Systems, Inc., Civ. A. No. 92-F-1363.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • February 17, 1994
    ...business. See T.A. Pelsue Company v. Grand Enterprises, Inc., 782 F.Supp. 1476, 1485 (D.Colo.1991); Williams v. Stirling, 40 Colo.App. 463, 583 P.2d 290, 292 (1978). With regard to the second component of the breach of fiduciary claim — the alleged usurpation of corporate opportunity —PSMI ......
  • Collie v. Becknell
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1988
    ...legitimate business plans and purposes. Carper v. Frost Oil Co., 72 Colo. 345, 211 P. 370 (1922). See also Williams v. Stirling, 40 Colo.App. 463, 583 P.2d 290 (1978). However, in reliance on Three G Corp. v. Daddis, 714 P.2d 1333 (Colo.App.1986), defendant argues that his fiduciary duty no......
2 books & journal articles
  • Managing the Distressed Enterprise: the Turf of Personal Liability
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 25-4, April 1996
    • Invalid date
    ...1988); CRS § 38-8-106(2). See also New Crawford Valley, Ltd. v. Benedict, 877 P.2d 1363, 1369 (Colo.App. 1993). 64. Williams v. Stirling, 583 P.2d 290, 292 (Colo.App. 1978). 65. Jet Courier Service, Inc. v. Mulei, 771 P.2d 486, 494 (Colo. 1989); Graphic Directions, Inc. v. Bush, 862 P.2d 10......
  • Terminating and Amending Conservation Easements in Colorado
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 45-8, August 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...v. McDavid, 676 P.2d 714 (Colo.App. 1983). [6] Bromley v. Lambert & Son, Inc., 752 P.2d 595 (Colo.App. 1988). [7] Williams v. Stirling, 583 P.2d 290 (Colo.App. 1978). [8] Matoush v. Lovingood, 177 P.3d 1262 (Colo. 2008). [9] Salazar v. Terry, 911 P.2d 1086, 1091 (Colo. 1996). [10] See gener......

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