Roaring Fork Club, LLC v. Pitkin County Board of Equalization
2013 COA 167
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Roaring Fork Club, LLC sought to have its 2011 property value assessed excluding sold memberships, which the BOE affirmed with the Board of Assessment Appeals.
- The memberships are long-standing, with the club selling thousands of regulars and smaller numbers of national and social memberships by 2011.
- Memberships are described as revocable licenses, not ownership interests, with rights limited to use of club amenities and subject to revocation; members do not own land or receive profits or rents from the property.
- Assessor valued the property using the income approach and argued under the unit assessment rule that sold memberships were part of the full fee simple interest because they allegedly functioned like leaseholds.
- The Board upheld the assessor’s inclusion of membership values in the property value; the club appealed on due process and statutory interpretation grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are sold memberships an interest in land for unit assessment? | Club: memberships are licenses, not land interests. | BOE: memberships are leasehold-like interests constituting part of the unit, per the unit rule. | Memberships are licenses, not land interests; exclude from value. |
| Should the unit assessment rule apply to sold memberships? | Memberships do not create estates in a unit of real property. | Unit rule requires valuing all estates in a unit together, including leaseholds. | Unit assessment rule does not apply to these memberships. |
| What is the proper characterization of memberships under Colorado law? | Memberships are revocable licenses without rights to possess, profits, or exclusion; not real property. | Memberships resemble leaseholds or usufructs that should be taxed as part of property value. | Memberships are revocable licenses; no usufruct or leasehold interest; not part of property value. |
Key Cases Cited
- City & Cnty. of Denver v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 848 P.2d 355 (Colo.1993) (unit rule governs taxation of multiple interests in a unit)
- Rutherford v. Scarborough, 472 P.2d 721 (Colo.App.1970) (life estates and property interests distinguished from licenses)
- Am. Coin-Meter of Colo. Springs, Inc. v. Poole, 503 P.2d 626 (Colo.App.1972) (distinguishes between leasehold and license concepts)
- Welsch v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1284 (Colo.App.2005) (license defined as personal privilege, not property right)
- Navajo Dev. Co., Inc. v. Sanderson, 655 P.2d 1374 (Colo.1982) (distinguishes usufructuary rights from property interests)
- Beach v. Beach, 74 P.3d 1 (Colo.2003) (life estates and possession rights guidance in property context)
- Bernhardt v. Hemphill, 878 P.2d 107 (Colo.App.1994) (time-share contracts and property interest analysis)
- S.T. Spano Greenhouses, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 155 P.3d 422 (Colo.2007) (valuation methods and deference to statutory framework)