2014 COA 40
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Landmark intervened in 2012 pursuing relief under CRCP 60(b)(2), (3), and (5) to set aside the December 2007 order forming the Marin Metropolitan District due to alleged fraud on the court and lack of due process.
- The 2007 service plan was approved, a petition for organization was filed, a hearing was scheduled, and the organizational election occurred in November 2007, with the district order creating the special district issued December 6, 2007.
- The district included Landmark Towers condominium properties, where about 130 potential purchasers had contracts but no closings by December 2007.
- Section 32-1-305(7) (as enacted) provides that once the order declaring the district organized is entered, it is final and not subject to appeal or other remedies except quo warranto by the attorney general within 35 days.
- The trial court held Landmark’s motion was barred by the statute’s finality provision, and, even addressing other arguments, upheld the statutory bar and later awarded costs to the District and to Bondshares.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could set aside the order under CRCP 60(b) after finalization under §32-1-305(7). | Landmark argues for relief despite finality. | Marin District asserts §32-1-305(7) bars any such relief. | Statutory finality controls; court barred from setting aside. |
| Whether due process concerns could overcome the finality bar. | Due process rights were implicated by notices and alleged concealment of facts. | Finality bar supersedes due process challenges after order is final. | Finality bar applies; due process arguments did not override statutory limit. |
| Whether the order could be voided for lack of electors’ approval or due to fraud on the court under 60(b)(3). | If void or fraud occurred, relief under Rule 60(b) should be available. | Statute precluded review once final; voidness and fraud claims are foreclosed. | Statutory jurisdictional bar applies; cannot set aside as void or due to fraud. |
| Whether 60(b)(2) or 60(b)(5) time bars prevented relief. | Fraud evidence justified tolling or relief under 60(b)(2)/(5). | Time bars apply; relief unavailable. | Time bars apply; jurisdictional bar remains dispositive. |
| Whether the costs award to the District and Bondshares was proper under C.R.C.P. 54(d) in a Title 32 proceeding. | Costs should not be awarded against Landmark or in favor of the intervenor. | Costs are allowable absent express prohibitions; Bondshares may be treated as prevailing party. | Costs awarded; no abuse of discretion; Bondshares properly included as prevailing party for costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Dist. Court, 144 Colo. 259 (1960) (limited review of district formation; quo warranto remedy via Attorney General)
- Enos v. Dist. Court, 124 Colo. 335 (1951) (de facto municipal validity; review limited to official state channels)
- Air Pollution Control Comm'n v. Dist. Court, 193 Colo. 146 (1977) (special statute controls over general procedural rules)
- Mackall v. Jalisco Int'l, Inc., 28 P.3d 975 (Colo. App. 2001) (costs discretion; absence of prohibition permits costs)
- Valentine v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 252 P.3d 1182 (Colo. App. 2011) (prevailing party costs; abuse of discretion standard)