2012 COA 93
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- CAM-Colorado, LLC challenges the district court’s ruling that Mesa County is an indispensable party to determine whether three roads on the Bittles’ land are public roads and whether CAM-Colorado has an easement of necessity.
- The Bittles sought adverse possession title to land they fenced, farmed, and used since 1949 (including parcel 4 by the Loma Drain), against Tavistock Partners, then CAM-Colorado after Tavistock’s sale.
- The district court granted judgment to the Bittles on their adverse possession claim to the fenced land, but declined to rule on parcel 4 since the claim wasn’t expressly amended in the complaint.
- CAM-Colorado asserted a trespass counterclaim and sought an injunction, an easement of necessity, and a declaration that the three roads were public.
- The court found Mesa County indispensable for the roads issue and denied CAM-Colorado’s easement of necessity claim for parcel 4, prompting CAM-Colorado’s appeal and the Bittles’ cross-appeal on the parcel 4 ruling.
- The appellate court affirmed the indispensable party and easement decisions but remanded to resolve parcel 4 via a Rule 59(a)/Rule 15(b) amendment to the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Mesa County indispensable for the roads ruling? | Bittles/Pls contendCounty’s interests require joinder to bind the county to a declaration. | CAM-Colorado argues County not indispensable because declaration preserves status quo and could be decided without County. | Mesa County is indispensable; district court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did CAM-Colorado prove an implied easement of necessity for parcel 4? | Bittles contend no easement since not proven necessary at severance and no unity support. | CAM-Colorado asserts necessity existed and parcel 4 requires access for future use. | The district court properly denied; CAM-Colorado failed to establish second and third requirements. |
| Was parcel 4 actually and intentionally tried by the parties despite pleading deficiencies? | Bittles argue parcel 4 evidence was presented and argued; should be adjudicated. | CAM-Colorado contends parcel 4 was not tried with proper pleading. | Yes; parcel 4 was actually and intentionally tried; the court erred in denying amendment. |
| Should the parcel 4 ruling be amended into the judgment under Rule 15(b)? | Bittles seek amendment to reflect trial on parcel 4. | CAM-Colorado argues amendment unnecessary given record. | Remand to amend the judgment to include parcel 4 ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodco v. Lindahl, 152 Colo. 49 (Colo. 1968) (test for indispensability; absence affects complete relief)
- Kobobel, 74 P.3d 407 (Colo.App. 2003) (common-law abandonment; importance of joinder)
- Sherrill, 757 P.2d 1085 (Colo. App. 1987) (dedication; governmental acceptance requirements)
- Turnbaugh v. Chapman, 68 P.3d 570 (Colo.App. 2008) (acceptance and continued status of public roads)
- Padilla v. Ghuman, 183 P.3d 653 (Colo. App. 2007) (Rule 15(b) amendments where issues tried by consent)
- Beaver Creek Ranch, L.P. v. Gordman Leverich Ltd. Liab. Ltd. P’ship, 226 P.3d 1155 (Colo. App. 2009) (boundaries established by fences or barriers)
- LeSatz v. Deshotels, 757 P.2d 1090 (Colo. App. 1988) (easement of necessity; alternatives must be considered)
- Polk v. Denver District Court, 849 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1993) (Rule 15(a) vs. 15(b) distinction in context)