Family Trust v. Bd. of Cty
2018 COA 64
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- The Bringle Family Trust owned two platted lots in Summit County: one classified as residential (with a house) and one classified as vacant (the subject parcel).
- The two parcels were originally purchased and developed in the 1950s–60s, later replatted in 1995 into two parcels separated by a public road/right-of-way.
- The Trust petitioned the county for tax abatement for tax years 2013–2015, seeking reclassification of the subject parcel from vacant to residential under § 39-1-102(14.4)(a).
- The county denied relief; the Trust appealed to the Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals, which denied reclassification after finding the subject parcel was not contiguous to the residential parcel and was not used as a unit with residential improvements.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the statutory contiguity requirement permits parcels separated by a public right-of-way to qualify as contiguous for residential classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parcels separated only by a road are "contiguous" under § 39-1-102(14.4)(a) | Trust: Parcels may be contiguous if only separated by a road/right-of-way that does not impede movement; proximity suffices | County/Board: Contiguous requires parcels actually touch; a public right-of-way severs contiguity | Held: "Contiguous" means touching; a public right-of-way that completely separates platted parcels defeats contiguity, so reclassification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Boulder Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. HealthSouth Corp., 246 P.3d 948 (Colo. 2011) (standard for setting aside administrative orders)
- Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equalization v. Clarke, 921 P.2d 717 (Colo. 1996) (discussion of contiguity in agricultural classification context)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Stapleton, 97 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2004) (statutory construction presumes meaning for each word)
- Sullivan v. Bd. of Equalization, 971 P.2d 675 (Colo. App. 1998) (discussing when adjacent parcels may qualify as residential)
- Huddleston v. Grand Cty. Bd. of Equalization, 913 P.2d 15 (Colo. 1996) (Assessors’ Reference Library binding on county assessors)
- Golden Gate Dev. Co. v. Gilpin Cty. Bd. of Equalization, 856 P.2d 72 (Colo. App. 1993) (Property Tax Administrator enforcement role)