Aspen Springs Metropolitan District v. Keno
2015 COA 97
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Aspen Springs Metropolitan District owns a Greenbelt used for recreation; the board adopted a resolution (2011) prohibiting grazing or tethering livestock on the Greenbelt without written permission.
- Stephen Keno continued to graze his flock on the Greenbelt, asserting Colorado’s Fence Law allowed grazing on unenclosed land.
- Aspen Springs sued for a declaratory judgment and injunction; the district court issued a preliminary injunction, later a permanent injunction, and found Keno in contempt twice for violating the injunctions.
- The district court declared the Fence Law does not authorize willful trespass onto Aspen Springs’ unenclosed property and permanently enjoined Keno from allowing his animals to graze the Greenbelt.
- The court imposed punitive sanctions (jail and fine) and assessed costs and attorney fees as a remedial contempt sanction; the Court of Appeals affirmed most of the judgment but vacated the fee award portion of the contempt order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a metropolitan/special district may regulate use of property it owns | Aspen Springs: as owner and under Special District Act, it may regulate and restrict use of its property (incidental powers) | Keno: special districts are creatures of statute and lack authority to regulate use of property they own | Held: Districts have implied and express powers to regulate their property, including under powers to acquire/maintain parks and open space; Aspen Springs may prohibit grazing |
| Whether Aspen Springs had standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief | Aspen Springs: owning and regulating the Greenbelt gives a legally protected interest supporting standing | Keno: district lacks power so cannot seek declaratory relief on that subject | Held: Because the district may regulate its property, it has standing to seek relief |
| Whether Colorado’s Fence Law permits willful trespass on unenclosed property | Aspen Springs: Fence Law provides defenses for non-willful trespass but does not authorize willful trespass; willful trespass remains actionable | Keno: the Fence Law allows grazing on unenclosed land and thus permits his conduct | Held: Fence Law limits recovery for non-willful trespass but does not abolish willful trespass; statute is a defense to damages, not a license to willfully trespass |
| Whether district court properly awarded attorney fees and costs as contempt sanction | Aspen Springs: sought costs and fees as remedial sanctions for contempt | Keno: remedial fees improper because contempt arose from past acts that could not be purged | Held: Court erred awarding fees as remedial sanction because contempt was based on past, non-purgable acts; punitive sanctions only were proper, so fee award vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Bly v. Story, 241 P.3d 529 (Colo. 2010) (statutory construction principles and intent of General Assembly)
- S. Fork Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Town of S. Fork, 252 P.3d 465 (Colo. 2011) (special districts have powers incidental to express statutory powers)
- Romer v. Fountain Sanitation Dist., 898 P.2d 37 (Colo. 1995) (incidental and implied powers of districts)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (property ownership includes exclusion rights)
- SaBell's, Inc. v. Flens, 627 P.2d 750 (Colo. 1981) (Fence Law modifies common law but does not displace willful trespass actions)
- People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162 (Colo. 2006) (limits on awarding attorney fees for punitive contempt)