Colorado Springs v. Serna
23CA1710
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 5, 2024Background
- In 2017, the City of Colorado Springs initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire property owned by Francisco Serna and BirdDog LLC (now Ajhalei Snoddy) for a public transportation and safety project after failed negotiations.
- The City Council passed Resolution 66-17 authorizing the condemnation; the owners did not accept or respond to the City's offers.
- The City filed a petition for condemnation and was granted immediate possession by the district court after a contested hearing; owners withdrew the deposited compensation.
- A previous division of the Court of Appeals had reversed a summary judgment on valuation in favor of the City, leading to a remand for trial.
- On remand, owners filed multiple motions challenging the City's authority, the process, evidentiary rulings, and the exclusion of their evidence at trial.
- The commission ultimately valued the property at $103,203.75, which the owners challenged on appeal, raising jurisdictional and procedural errors.
Issues
| Issue | Serna/Snoddy's Argument | Colorado Springs' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction (Resolution defects) | Resolution 66-17 was defective, so the court lacked jurisdiction | Defects in resolution do not affect jurisdiction | No jurisdictional defect; City had authority |
| Notification under URA | Lack of notice under URA deprived court of jurisdiction | URA noncompliance does not eliminate jurisdiction | No jurisdictional defect under URA |
| Preclusion of owners’ trial evidence | District court improperly barred owners’ evidence for no disclosure | Owners failed to comply with orders to disclose | Preclusion was proper |
| Admissibility of City’s appraiser’s testimony | Appraiser violated standards; testimony should be excluded | Alleged violation does not impact competency | Testimony was properly admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Carbondale v. GSS Props., LLC, 169 P.3d 675 (Colo. 2007) (subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, including on appeal)
- In re J.C.T., 176 P.3d 726 (Colo. 2007) (existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136 (Colo. 2011) (scope of district court's subject matter jurisdiction under Colorado Constitution)
- Minto v. Lambert, 870 P.2d 572 (Colo. App. 1993) (procedural errors don't affect subject matter jurisdiction in condemnation)
- Wassenich v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 186 P. 533 (Colo. 1919) (district court must determine condemnation authority in advance)
- Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co., 11 P.2d 221 (Colo. 1932) (constitutionality of condemnation act is a judicial question)