Mook v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs 18SC499, Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Kelly 18SC544, Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Hogan
2020 CO 12
Colo.2020Background
- Section 39-1-102(14.4)(a) defines "residential land" to include "a parcel or contiguous parcels of land under common ownership upon which residential improvements are located and that is used as a unit in conjunction with the residential improvements located thereon," so undeveloped parcels must be (1) contiguous with residential land, (2) used as a unit with it, and (3) under common ownership.
- Mook: The Mooks own a residential parcel and a nearby undeveloped parcel separated by a 17-foot HOA-owned strip; BCC denied reclassification, BAA and COA affirmed; Supreme Court granted review on contiguity.
- Hogan: The Hogans own three contiguous parcels in an L shape (one with a house, one reclassified, one undeveloped used for dog-walking, parking, views); assessor denied reclassification of the undeveloped parcel based on ARL guidelines; BAA denied, COA reversed and remanded; Supreme Court granted review on the "used as a unit" standard.
- Kelly: Kelly holds two adjacent parcels in different trusts (she is trustee/beneficiary of both); BCC denied reclassification, BAA denied, COA reversed (finding equitable/common ownership), Supreme Court granted review on whether record title controls common ownership.
- Supreme Court rulings: affirmed COA in Mook (contiguity requires physical touching), affirmed COA in Hogan (rejects assessor’s heightened "active/necessary" use and per-parcel improvement requirements; remand for proper "used as a unit" analysis), and reversed COA in Kelly (ownership determined from county records).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "contiguous parcels" may be non-touching (Mook) | Mook: contiguity can include parcels in close proximity or separated by easements/rights-of-way | BCC: contiguous means parcels must physically touch | Held: "contiguous parcels" means parcels that physically touch; non-touching parcels separated by HOA strip do not qualify |
| What use satisfies "used as a unit" (Hogan) | Hogan: parcels may be used collectively without each containing residential improvements; passive uses (dog-walking, views, parking) suffice | Assessor/BAA: ARL requires parcels be "integral," likely conveyed together, show "active" uses and/or contain improvements | Held: "used as a unit" means treating multiple parcels as a single residential unit used in conjunction with residential improvements; assessor erred by imposing necessity, active-use, or per-parcel improvement requirements; remand to apply correct standard |
| Whether record title controls "common ownership" (Kelly) | Kelly: "common ownership" can be shown by overlapping beneficial ownership/control (trust beneficiary status), not only record title | BCC/BAA: ownership determined from county records (record title) | Held: Assessors must ascertain ownership from county records; parcels titled to different trusts are not under "common ownership" for §39-1-102(14.4)(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas County Bd. of Equalization v. Clarke, 921 P.2d 717 (Colo. 1996) (discussed contiguity language in agricultural-land context)
- M.D.C. Construction Co. v. Boulder County Bd. of Equalization, 830 P.2d 975 (Colo. 1992) (present-use focus for classification)
- Gyurman v. Weld County Bd. of Equalization, 851 P.2d 307 (Colo. App. 1993) (passive, noncommercial uses can support residential classification)
- Huddleston v. Grand County Bd. of Equalization, 913 P.2d 15 (Colo. 1996) (deference limits to Property Tax Administrator/BAA interpretations)
- Hinsdale County Bd. of Equalization v. HDH Partnership, 438 P.3d 742 (Colo. 2019) (county records determine property ownership for tax purposes)