Battle North, LLC v. Sensible Housing Co.
2015 COA 83
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Pine Martin parcel ownership dispute in Eagle County; 1998 Mortgage Investment Corporation foreclosed on a deed of trust encumbering Pine Martin and Piney Lumber parcels.
- PMMC and PLC claimed fee ownership in two separate parcels and were substituted by Ginn Battle Lender, LLC after MIC assigned its interest in 2004.
- PMMC allegedly transferred its interests to Sensible via 2006 and 2008 quitclaim deeds, which Sensible recorded; Sensible later faced a petition questioning these documents.
- Battle North filed an order-to-show-cause petition under § 38-85-204 and C.R.C.P. 105.1 alleging the 1915 Stock Certificate and the quitclaim deeds were spurious.
- The district court made detailed findings that Tucker created the 1915 Stock Certificate, that the certificate was a sham, and that the quitclaim deeds lacked authority and were spurious; court released the documents and awarded Battle North fees under § 88-85-204(2).
- On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for an award of Battle North’s reasonable appellate fees related to the quitclaim deeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the priority rule barred the spurious-doc petition. | Battle North argued district court could proceed under § 38-85-204 despite concurrent proceedings. | Sensible argued priority rule required staying second action until first resolved. | District court did not abuse discretion; priority rule did not require stay. |
| Whether filing the petition was permitted under 105.1 and the statute. | Battle North contends petition could be brought under 105.1 either separately or as a counterclaim. | Sensible contends petition here exceeded the statutory filing meaning. | Permissible; 105.1 allows separate action or counterclaim; filing was valid for purposes of § 38-85-204. |
| Whether the 1915 Stock Certificate is a spurious document. | Battle North argued the stock certificate was a valid exhibit and not a spurious document. | Sensible argued the certificate, created by Tucker, was not recorded or filed against property. | Not a spurious document under the statute; filing as an exhibit does not affect real property. |
| Whether the 2006 and 2008 quitclaim deeds are spurious documents. | Battle North asserted the deeds cloud title and are spurious; they were recorded against Battle North’s property. | Sensible argued the deeds were not executed by authority and thus not valid; court had authority to decide. | Quitclaim deeds are spurious documents; they cloud title and affect Battle North’s property. |
| Whether Battle North’s title was invalidated by the spurious documents. | Battle North contends its possession and title derived from the deeds; spurious docs cloud title. | Sensible contends title defended by tax deeds and chain of title; issues not resolved against Battle North. | Battle North’s title not invalid; court affirmed clouding effects and remanded for appellate fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Minturn v. Sensible Hous. Co., 2012 CO 23 (Colo. 2012) (priority rule and stay considerations for spurious-doc proceedings)
- Mortgage Inv. Corp. v. Battle Mountain Corp., 70 P.3d 1176 (Colo. 2003) (precedent on title disputes and spurious documents)
- Pierce v. Francis, 194 P.3d 505 (Colo. App. 2008) (cloud on title from lis pendens and impact on marketability)
- Shyanne Props., LLC v. Torp, 210 P.3d 490 (Colo. App. 2009) (spurious documents and property filings context)
- Lake Canal Reservoir Co. v. Beethe, 227 P.3d 882 (Colo. 2010) (identify property sufficiency in tax-title context)