Crystal v. Marrone, 22CA0913

Parkside Townhomes is a four-unit subdivision in Frisco, Colorado, with each owner holding fee simple title to their lot; there was no land held in common by the Association.
The main dispute involves whether the subdivision's covenants, Plat Map, and subsequent Association actions created an easement or common area over the side and rear yards of Lot 104A (owned by Crystal) for access, utilities, and maintenance.
Crystal bought Lot 104A in 2014 and objected to a 2014 Association resolution and a 2020 Amended Declaration that asserted broader easement or common area rights over her property.
Crystal filed suit seeking declaratory, quiet title, and trespass relief after the Association and other owners asserted rights to enter and use areas she considered private; the district court ruled for defendants on all claims.
Issues also arose regarding her installation of a hot tub and a trespass claim relating to snow falling from a neighbor’s roof onto her property.
On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed in part (finding no easement or common area rights over side and rear yards), affirmed in part (rejecting Crystal's trespass claim), and dismissed the hot tub dispute as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence/Scope of Express Easement (side & rear yards)	Declaration and Plat Map do not create easement/common area over side and rear yards; only front yards are encumbered.	Declaration, Plat Map, and surrounding circumstances create broad easement/common area rights over all yards.	No express easement or common area over side and rear yards; only the front yards are encumbered.
Validity of Amended Declaration imposing new easements	Amended Declaration cannot expand easements without Crystal’s consent; amounts to an unlawful taking.	Amended Declaration merely clarifies/reflects pre-existing easement rights.	Amended Declaration could not create new easements on Crystal’s property without her consent.
Implied Easements (necessity or prescription)	No adverse or necessary use sufficient to create implied or prescriptive rights.	Longstanding use and necessity justifies implied or prescriptive easements.	No implied or prescriptive easement established over side or rear yards.
Trespass claim for falling snow/ice	Neighbor is responsible for trespass as snow/ice falls onto her deck/yard from neighbor’s roof.	Marrone did not alter or construct the roof and is not responsible for natural snowfall from the original design.	No trespass; Marrone did not act or alter the condition causing snow to fall.

Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch Corp., 965 P.2d 1229 (Colo. 1998) (Principles for interpreting and defining the scope of express and implied easements)
Wagner v. Fairlamb, 379 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1963) (Requirements for easement by necessity)
Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2001) (Elements for establishing prescriptive easements)
Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003) (Continuous trespass principles)
Public Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377 (Colo. 2001) (Definition of trespass)