UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Ass'n
2017 CO 107
Colo.2017Background
- Developers formed Marin Metropolitan District to finance infrastructure for a planned nearby development (European Village) and included the already-planned Landmark Towers condominiums in the District without informing purchasers.
- A TABOR election was held; six contract holders of a tiny "director’s parcel" voted to approve up to $35.5M in bonds and property-tax levies on all owners in the District. Bonds (~$30.5M) were issued and later misused; the developer bankrupt, indicted, and deceased.
- Condominium owners closed in 2008 unaware of the District; they first learned of the District and related tax bills in 2009 and complained that they received no benefit from the District and were denied notice.
- Landmark Towers Association filed suit in 2011 seeking to invalidate the bond/tax election and recover taxes; the district court found some tax refunds warranted but held the election contest claims were jurisdictionally time-barred under §1-11-213(4).
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the challenge timely and that the election violated TABOR; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals, holding the election contest barred by §1-11-213(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §1-11-213(4) (10-day election-contest filing) | Landmark: filing within more than 3 years is saved by exceptions; substantive defects mean §1-11-213(4) doesn’t bar the claim | Petitioners: statute is jurisdictional; failure to file within 10 days strips court of jurisdiction | Held: §1-11-213(4) is jurisdictional (a non-claim statute); Landmark’s contest was time-barred |
| Equitable tolling/estoppel to excuse late filing | Landmark: equitable tolling/estoppel should apply because owners were misled and lacked notice | Petitioners: non-claim statutes are not subject to equitable defenses | Held: equitable tolling/estoppel inapplicable because §1-11-213(4) is a non-claim statute |
| Applicability of Cacioppo (substance vs. procedural challenge) | Landmark: this is a substantive challenge (failure to obtain elector approval) and thus not subject to the 10-day bar per Cacioppo | Petitioners: the claim attacks the manner of obtaining results (ineligible voters, lack of notice) — a procedural contest under Cacioppo | Held: Following Cacioppo, Landmark’s claims challenge the means of obtaining results (procedural) and are governed by §1-11-213(4) time bar |
| Other statutory limits (e.g., §11-57-212) and remaining issues | Landmark: alternative statutes/arguments keep claims alive | Petitioners: other statutes may bar claims | Held: Court did not decide §11-57-212 or merits (e.g., due process/illegal assessment); remanded for further proceedings limited by timeliness ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Cacioppo v. Eagle County Sch. Dist. Re-50J, 92 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2004) (distinguishes ballot-title/substance challenges from procedural election-contests; procedural contests subject to statutory time bars)
- Mesa Cty. Valley Sch. Dist. No. 51 v. Kelsey, 8 P.3d 1200 (Colo. 2000) (non-claim statutes are not subject to equitable defenses such as tolling or estoppel)
- Pub. Serv. Co. v. Barnhill, 690 P.2d 1248 (Colo. 1984) (tests for whether a limitations provision is a non-claim statute—language that makes timely filing a condition of the claim or deprives courts of jurisdiction)
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1996) (equitable tolling applied where flexibility is required, contrasted here with non-claim statutes)
- Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563 (Colo. 2007) (respecting the legislature’s chosen statutory language; courts do not add or subtract statutory words)