Department of Transportation v. Gypsum Ranch Co.
244 P.3d 127
| Colo. | 2010Background
- In 1975, the predecessor to CDOT condemned land in Garfield County for highway construction, resolving compensation and transferring title to the department in 1987.
- Gypsum Ranch Co. later acquired the parcel, and in 2006 Gypsum filed suit to quiet title to the mineral estate beneath the condemned land.
- The district court awarded summary judgment to the department, holding it had acquired a fee simple estate including the mineral rights.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding pre-2008 statutes barred acquisition of mineral interests in condemnation for highways.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the department had statutory authority to take mineral title in condemnation and related proceedings.
- The court held that prior to 2008 the statutory scheme did not categorically prohibit acquiring mineral interests when condemning land for highway purposes, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to acquire mineral estate pre-2008 | Gypsum argued department could not acquire minerals in condemnation. | DOT contended it could acquire minerals as part of fee simple ownership when condemning for highway purposes. | Department may acquire mineral estate in condemnation prior to 2008. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Transp. v. Stapleton, 97 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2004) (eminent domain power exists to extent authorized by legislature)
- Potashnik v. Pub. Serv. Co., 126 Colo. 98, 247 P.2d 137 (1952) (condemnation authority rooted in statute)
- People v. Owens, 228 P.3d 969 (Colo. 2010) (interpretation of statute and legislative intent)
- United States v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 112 (1957) (right-of-way interests and property rights delineation)
- City of Colo. Springs v. Powell, 156 P.3d 461 (Colo. 2007) (reliance on bill summaries and titles in statutory interpretation)
- Martin v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 209 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2009) (determining legislative intent in statutory revisions)
- O'Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996) (later interpretations do not control earlier statutory meaning)
- Curious Theatre Co. v. Colo. Dep't of Pub. Health & Env't, 220 P.3d 544 (Colo. 2009) (in pari materia and contextual construction of statutes)
- Walgreen Co. v. Charnes, 819 P.2d 1039 (Colo. 1991) (principles of statutory interpretation and related authority)