Bolinger v. Neal
259 P.3d 1259
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- In 2000, Neal developed Mill Creek parcel Lot A and Lot B; Lot B became Lot 10 with open space.
- Neal sold Lot A to Wollam and Schoenstein, promising access to Lot 10 and a trail.
- In 2001 a Conservation Easement deed to COL reserved Neal's access rights for Lot 10.
- In 2003-2004 Neal formed Plains View and recorded a PUD and amendments depicting a 20-foot path around Lot 10.
- By 2006 disputes arose over access and a trail; plaintiffs sued for quiet title, fraud, and breach of contract.
- The trial court found some plaintiffs had licenses and awarded nominal or specific damages, leading to appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the amended PUD create an express path easement? | Bolinger plaintiffs rely on amended PUD. | DeWolfs/ COL assert no easement created. | Yes, the amended PUD created an express path easement. |
| Is the path easement precluded by the conservation deed? | Easement coexistence with conservation values. | Conservation deed restricts or constrains improvements. | Conservation deed does not preclude the easement. |
| Is the path easement superior to COL's or DeWolfs' title for quiet title? | Plaintiffs have superior title to Lot 10 path. | COL/DeWolfs defend conservation rights. | Plaintiffs hold superior title against DeWolfs; COL's interest limited to licenses. |
| Was there an easement by estoppel for Wollam/Schoenstein? | Restatement §2.10 may apply. | No misrepresentation to those owners; licenses exist. | No easement by estoppel; license governs. |
| Were fraud and contract damages properly awarded against Neal/ Plains View? | Plaintiffs relied on Neal's promises for access/trail. | Statute of limitations bars some claims; some promises align with easement. | Fraud claims time-barred for most plaintiffs; contract damages limited; some relief reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolser v. Ed. of Comm'rs., 100 P.3d 51 (Colo. App. 2004) (de novo review of recorded instruments and easement creation when words unclear)
- Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch Corp., 965 P.2d 1229 (Colo. , 1998) (intent in easement scope determined from surrounding facts)
- Allen v. Nickerson, 155 P.3d 595 (Colo. App. 2006) (plat can create express easement in a PUD context)