Sandstrom v. Solen
2016 COA 29
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- The parcel at issue was a single assessed fifty-percent undivided mineral interest beneath land Bradford owned; Gregory Solen and Patti Ibbotson each held an undivided one-half interest in that assessed parcel.
- Ibbotson's ownership was recorded with a deed filed in 1994, but the Assessor’s records were not updated; tax bills were mailed only to Solen.
- Taxes for 2004–2007 went unpaid; Bradford purchased the 2004 tax lien and, after the Treasurer did not conduct title work or check the Clerk and Recorder, obtained a treasurer’s (tax) deed in 2009.
- In 2018 the Treasurer, having been notified of Ibbotson’s claim, recorded a declaration invalidating Bradford’s tax deed and sought a court declaration validating that cancellation. The Treasurer admitted she had not conducted the statutorily required diligent inquiry.
- The district court granted summary judgment: it held the treasurer’s deed was invalidable for failure to conduct diligent inquiry and quieted title in Solen and Ibbotson; Bradford appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a treasurer’s deed issued without diligent inquiry is void or voidable | Bradford: deed is invalid and title vested in purchaser; deed should be effective | Treasurer/Solen/Ibbotson: failure of statutory requirements invalidates deed | Court: Such a deed is voidable (not void per se under Lake Canal) but may be set aside; here court set it aside because Treasurer admitted failure to conduct diligent inquiry |
| Effect of Treasurer’s failure to give notice/diligent inquiry | Bradford: Solen had notice and is estopped; deed should stand as to those notified | Treasurer and co-owners: statute requires diligent inquiry; insufficient inquiry = insufficient notice and supports setting deed aside | Court: Diligent inquiry and notice are statutory prerequisites; insufficient inquiry made deed voidable and court properly voided it when challenged within limitations period |
| Standing of Solen to defend/quiet title | Bradford: Solen lacks standing to challenge deed | Solen: as defendant and as claimant to the parcel, he has injury-in-fact and may seek quiet title | Court: Solen has standing (defendants need not satisfy traditional standing; cross-claimants with competing property claims have standing) |
| Whether redemption by one cotenant benefits all cotenants when parcel assessed as one unit | Bradford: separate undivided interests must be assessed and redeemed separately; Solen’s notice estops challenge | Solen/Ibbotson: assessor assessed one parcel; redemption by one cotenant benefits all cotenants in that assessed parcel | Court: Where assessor assesses the interest as one parcel, sale and redemption operate on the whole assessed parcel; a cotenant who redeems does so for benefit of all cotenants; quiet title to Solen and Ibbotson was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Lake Canal Reservoir Co. v. Beethe, 227 P.3d 882 (Colo. 2010) (distinguishes defects that render a tax deed void versus voidable; inadequate notice/diligent inquiry makes a deed voidable)
- Schmidt v. Langel, 874 P.2d 447 (Colo. App. 1994) (defines "diligent inquiry" and explains purpose of notice provisions prior to issuing treasurer’s deed)
- Delsas ex rel. Delsas v. Centex Home Equity Co., 186 P.3d 141 (Colo. App. 2008) (discusses that a void deed conveys no title; contrasted with voidable deed principles)
- Turkey Creek, LLC v. Rosania, 953 P.2d 1306 (Colo. App. 1998) (statutory notice requirements for treasurer’s deeds are jurisdictional in prior precedent; court discusses standard for compliance)
- Bald Eagle Mining & Ref. Co. v. Brunton, 487 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1968) (tax deeds prima facie evidence of regularity but open to attack for irregularities)