Grandote Golf & Country Club, LLC v. Town of La Veta
252 P.3d 1196
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ordinance No. 131 attempted to annex property in 1984; two certified copies and a map were not filed as required; the county clerk/recorder did not file with the division of local government as required by statute.
- Ordinance No. 144 repealed No. 131 after GGCC sued to compel filings; subsequent Ordinance No. 154 in 1987 annexed a portion of the property.
- Grandote filed 2009 action for declaratory judgment that No. 144 was void for failure to meet disconnection requirements, asserting No. 131’s annexation remained effective.
- District court granted dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and, alternatively, held No. 144 repealed No. 131 and property was not in the Town.
- Court addresses whether No. 131’s annexation ever became effective, concluding it did not; therefore No. 144 did not have to comply with disconnection requirements.
- Court notes issue of whether substantial compliance with filing requirements could render annexation effective and ultimately holds strict compliance was required; Ordinance No. 131 never became effective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether No. 131’s annexation became effective. | Grandote argues No. 131 was effective due to substantial compliance or lack of challenge to its validity. | Town argues No. 131 failed to meet filing requirements, so annexation never became effective. | No. 131 never became effective; strict compliance required. |
| Whether substantial compliance could satisfy the filing requirements. | Grandote asserts substantial compliance suffices to render annexation effective. | Town asserts strict compliance mandatory; substantial compliance not enough. | Substantial compliance not sufficient; strict compliance required. |
| Whether the district court could consider the annexation’s effectiveness to resolve the disconnection dispute. | Grandote contends the Town could not challenge No. 131’s effectiveness. | Town may challenge effectiveness to address disconnection issues. | Yes, court may address effectiveness to resolve the disconnection issues. |
| Whether No. 131’s lack of proper filings bars No. 144 from effecting disconnection. | Grandote emphasizes No. 144’s validity depends on No. 131’s effectiveness. | No. 131 never effective; disconnection requirements not triggered. | Annexation not effective; disconnection requirements were not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newflower Market, Inc. v. Cook, 229 P.3d 1058 (Colo.App.2010) (clarifies strict vs. substantial compliance in statutory context)
- Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402 (Colo.App.2004) (standard for affirming on alternative grounds; substantial compliance context)
- 7250 Corp. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 799 P.2d 917 (Colo.1990) (addressing collateral challenge to annexation validity)
- In re Marriage of Slowinski, 199 P.3d 48 (Colo.App.2008) (mandatory vs. discretionary compliance considerations)
- City of Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049 (Colo.App.2002) (illustrates limitations of substantial compliance where precise statutory requirements exist)