2021 CO 56
Colo.2021Background:
- Disputed ~0.5-acre parcel in Snowmass Village originally part of a larger parcel developed by L.R. Foy Construction in the 1970s; Foy conveyed most of the larger parcel in 1975 but not the disputed parcel.
- From 1975 through at least 2012, Woodbridge Condominium Association continuously used and maintained the parcel (mowing, landscaping, planting trees, installing gravel road, signs, sprinkler system, and restricting part of the road with a chain).
- In 1991 Woodbridge sought permission from Foy to landscape; Foy responded conditionally (including a requirement that Woodbridge not claim rights), and Woodbridge did not accept those conditions and continued using the land.
- In 1992 Woodbridge offered to purchase the parcel for $10,000; no response was received, and Woodbridge continued its non-permissive use.
- Lo Viento Blanco purchased the parcel in 2010; Woodbridge sued in 2012 to quiet title (adverse possession) or, alternatively, for a prescriptive easement. Trial court found adverse possession; the court of appeals reversed adverse possession but affirmed a prescriptive easement on remand.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an occupier's acknowledgment or recognition of the owner’s title during the prescriptive period interrupts prescriptive use and defeats the presumption of adversity; Court held it does not and affirmed the prescriptive-easement ruling.
Issues:
| Issue | Lo Viento Blanco (Plaintiff) | Woodbridge (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an occupier's acknowledgment or recognition of owner’s title during the prescriptive period interrupts the prescriptive use and defeats the presumption that the use was adverse | Acknowledgment (e.g., correspondence, offers) interrupts prescriptive use and rebuts presumption of adverse use | Recognition of title does not, by itself, show permission or subordination; prescriptive use may remain adverse | Recognition/acknowledgment does not interrupt prescriptive use or defeat presumption of adversity for a prescriptive easement |
| Whether Woodbridge’s 1991 request for permission to landscape interrupted the prescriptive period | The request shows Woodbridge treated owner’s title as superior and thus interrupted adversity | Foy’s permission was conditional and never accepted; Woodbridge’s continued nonpermissive maintenance shows adverse use | Request for permission that did not result in an accepted, permissive arrangement did not interrupt adverse use |
| Whether Woodbridge’s 1992 offer to purchase the parcel interrupted prescriptive use | Offer to purchase shows subordination to owner’s title and cuts off prescriptive continuity | An unsuccessful purchase offer does not establish subordination or permission; claimants need not assert exclusive ownership to obtain an easement | An unsuccessful offer to buy does not convert continued use into permissive/subordinate use for prescriptive purposes |
| Whether prior alleged authorization or continuing use under the owner’s predecessors established subordination/permission | Prior authorization or derivative claim would defeat adversity | No record evidence of valid prior authorization; use was without owner’s consent | No evidence of permission or subordination; presumption of adverse use not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Matoush v. Lovingood, 177 P.3d 1262 (Colo. 2008) (legal elements of prescriptive easement reviewed de novo)
- Smith v. Hayden, 772 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1989) (adverse possession requires assertion of exclusive ownership to show hostility)
- M.D.C./Wood, Inc. v. Mortimer, 866 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1994) (trial-court factual findings on adversity reviewed for clear error)
- Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2002) (elements of prescriptive easement: open/notorious, continuous, and adverse or pursuant to ineffective grant)
- Trueblood v. Pierce, 179 P.2d 671 (Colo. 1947) (presumption that unexplained open use continued for prescriptive period is adverse)
- Mount Emmons Mining Co. v. Town of Crested Butte, 40 P.3d 1255 (Colo. 2002) (definition and effect of subordination to owner’s title)
- Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544 (Colo. App. 2006) (noted rule that acknowledgment can interrupt prescriptive period; Colorado Supreme Court distinguished this rule in easement context)
- Pagel v. Reyman, 628 P.2d 166 (Colo. App. 1981) (permission via agreement during prescriptive period interrupts adverse use)