Rust v. Board of County Commissioners of Summit County
2018 COA 72
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Robert W. Rust owned a residential parcel and purchased the adjacent undeveloped parcel; both are contiguous and under common ownership.
- County assessor classified the adjacent undeveloped parcel as vacant land for tax years 2013–2015, subjecting it to a higher tax rate than residential land.
- Rust sought reclassification of the undeveloped parcel as residential under § 39-1-102(14.4)(a), arguing it was "used as a unit" with the residence.
- At BAA hearing Rust testified the lot served as a buffer, wildlife viewing area, parking (truck/trailer), skiing/sledding/hiking, snow storage, and for tranquility.
- Assessor testified after multiple inspections she saw no evidence the lot was an integral part of the residence (no tracks, parking and snow storage appeared on the residential lot, topography limited recreational use); BAA credited assessor and denied reclassification.
- Court of Appeals reviewed deference to BAA factual findings but reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, and affirmed the BAA order denying reclassification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vacant contiguous parcel qualifies as "residential land" under § 39-1-102(14.4)(a) ("used as a unit" element) | Rust: the parcel is used with the residence (buffer, recreation, parking, snow storage, enjoyment) and thus should be classified residential | County/Assessor: the parcel is not an integral part of the residence; evidence shows limited/occasional use and no physical indications of use; classification as vacant is proper | Court: Affirmed BAA — the use described did not satisfy the statutory "used as a unit" requirement and reclassification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Aberdeen Inv’rs, Inc. v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 240 P.3d 398 (Colo. App.) (discusses mixed questions of law and fact and standard of review for BAA decisions)
- Farny v. Bd. of Equalization, 985 P.2d 106 (Colo. App.) (single-parcel classification principles)
- Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198 (Colo.) (deference to BAA on weighing evidence; standard to set aside BAA)
- Lobato v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 105 P.3d 220 (Colo.) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Sullivan v. Bd. of Equalization, 971 P.2d 675 (Colo. App.) (contiguous parcel may qualify as residential if used as a unit with residential improvements)
- Gyurman v. Weld Cty. Bd. of Equalization, 851 P.2d 307 (Colo. App.) (classification of parcels and related principles)