2023 CO 27
Colo.2023Background
- Commercial property owners in Broomfield challenged their 2020 property tax assessments, arguing COVID-19 and related public-health orders created “unusual conditions” under § 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) requiring revaluation.
- Taxpayers appealed administratively to the Broomfield Assessor and Board of Equalization; the BOE denied all appeals on October 2, 2020.
- Taxpayers sued in district court for mandamus and declaratory relief seeking revaluation and rulings that (1) COVID-19 was a “detrimental act of nature” and (2) public-health orders were “regulations restricting the use of the land.”
- The district court granted summary judgment for Broomfield, holding COVID-19 was not detrimental to real property and orders regulated economic activity, not land use; it therefore did not reach the timing-of-revaluation issue.
- Colorado Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction (C.R.S. § 13-4-109) and affirmed the district court: COVID-19 is not a “detrimental act[] of nature,” and the public-health orders were not “regulations restricting . . . the use of the land,” so no revaluation was required for 2020.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COVID-19 is a “detrimental act[] of nature” under § 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) | COVID-19 was an unusual, detrimental natural event affecting property values and thus triggers revaluation | COVID-19 is not an act of nature "in or related to" real property for statute’s purposes | Court: COVID-19 is not a ‘‘detrimental act[] of nature’’ under the statute; no revaluation required |
| Whether government public-health orders were “regulations restricting . . . the use of the land” | Orders (closures, occupancy limits) restricted use of properties and thus qualify as unusual conditions triggering revaluation | Orders regulated economic activity conducted on land, not the land’s use itself; therefore they don’t qualify | Court: Orders regulated commercial activity, not land use; they are not ‘‘regulations restricting . . . the use of the land’’ |
| Whether an assessor must revalue when an unusual condition arises after the January 1 assessment date | Taxpayers argued pandemic effects in 2020 required revaluation despite timing | Broomfield argued reassessment is not required for conditions arising after Jan. 1 (timing defeats claim) | Court: Did not reach timing issue here because it found no qualifying unusual condition (but other companion decisions address timing) |
Key Cases Cited
- LaDuke v. CF & I Steel Corp., 785 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1990) (distinguishes restrictions on economic activity from regulations on land use)
- Dep’t of Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 441 P.3d 1012 (Colo. 2019) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Pulte Home Corp. v. Countryside Cmty. Ass’n, 382 P.3d 821 (Colo. 2016) (summary judgment appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2010) (rules for statutory interpretation)