December 15, 2018

Colorado Court of Appeals: Contract Between Private Cable Provider and Government Void Because It Does Not Provide for Annual Appropriations

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Falcon Broadband, Inc. v. Banning Lewis Ranch Metropolitan District No. 1 on Thursday, June 28, 2018.

Contract—Colorado Governmental Immunity Act—Tort—Civil Conspiracy—Unjust Enrichment—Promissory Estoppel—Annual Appropriation—Attorney Fees.

Falcon Broadband, Inc. (Falcon) signed a contract, the “Bulk Services Agreement” (BSA), with Banning Lewis Ranch Metropolitan District No. 1 (the District) to provide Internet and cable services to Banning Lewis Ranch area residents. Under the BSA, the District granted Falcon the exclusive right to provide Internet and cable services to residents for a monthly per-resident fee. The BSA states that it remains in effect until 2,700 homes in the development are occupied, which hasn’t yet occurred. The District later disavowed the BSA, stopped paying Falcon, and stopped collecting fees from residents. Falcon sued the District, its directors, and Oakwood Homes, LLC (the developer) and related Oakwood entities (collectively, Oakwood).  The district court dismissed Falcon’s complaint in part as barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) and granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the remaining claims not subject to dismissal under the CGIA.

On appeal, Falcon contended that the district court erred in its application of the CGIA and in granting summary judgment. It is undisputed that the District is a public entity within the meaning and protection of the CGIA. Thus, the district court properly dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against the District because that claim is undeniably a tort claim. However, the court improperly dismissed the unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims as sounding in tort because they were grounded in contracts; the district court should have granted summary judgment to the District on these claims. The district court properly granted the District summary judgment on the breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory judgment claims. The District directors are also protected by the CGIA, and the district court should have dismissed the claims against them. All of the Oakwood entities are private associations; thus, the district court erred in dismissing some claims against Oakwood under the CGIA.

Falcon also contended that the district court erred by determining that the BSA is void and by entering summary judgment on its tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims regardless of the BSA’s validity. The BSA is void under C.R.S. § 29-1-110 because it is a multi-year contract that does not provide that the obligation to pay is subject to annual appropriations. Because all of Falcon’s claims are premised on the BSA’s validity, only its unjust enrichment claim against Oakwood survives.

The District and the directors cross-appealed, arguing that the court erred by failing to award them attorney fees under C.R.S. § 13-17-201. Because the gist of Falcon’s action against the District was the District’s failure to perform the BSA, not its commission of any tort, and those claims were dismissed on summary judgment, the District is not entitled to fees. On the other hand, the only claims Falcon brought against the directors were tort claims. Because Falcon’s entire action against the directors should have been dismissed under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) as tort claims barred by the CGIA, the directors are entitled to an award of their reasonable attorney fees under C.R.S. § 13-17-201. The directors are also entitled to an award of their reasonable attorney fees incurred in their successful appeal under C.R.S. § 13-17-201.

The judgment was affirmed on all claims except Falcon’s unjust enrichment claim against Oakwood, which was reversed. The district court’s denial of the District’s request for attorney fees was affirmed. The district court’s denial of the directors’ request for attorney fees was reversed and the case was remanded to determine those fees.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: CGIA Does Not Apply to Claims by Metropolitan District Against Developers

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Tallman Gulch Metropolitan District v. Natureview Development, LLC on Thursday, May 18, 2017.

Colorado Governmental Immunity Act—Public Employee Immunity for Torts.

Richardson owned Natureview Development, LLC (Natureview) and platted and developed Tallman Gulch, a real estate development. In 2006, the Tallman Gulch Metropolitan District (the District) was formed to provide public improvements and services to its residents and taxpayers. Richardson was president of the District’s Board of Directors (Board). Tallman Gulch went into foreclosure, and despite being aware of the foreclosure proceedings, Richardson, acting as president of the District’s Board, signed off on the issuance of $4,214,000 in bonds to Natureview in exchange for the then-existing infrastructure improvements in Tallman Gulch. Ten days after the bonds were issued, the district court authorized the public trustee sale of Tallman Gulch, which was sold in 2011.

The District filed various claims against Natureview and Richardson, alleging it suffered an injury when it issued over $4 million in bonds to Natureview and Richardson, despite Tallman Gulch’s foreclosure status. The District argued that Richardson breached his fiduciary duty to the District as a Board member by approving issuance of bonds in a financially reckless manner and in bad faith, failing to disclose and consider the development’s financial and foreclosure status in making the bonds decision. Defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds. As relevant here, defendants argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against Richardson under CRCP 12(b)(1), asserting that the claims were based on Richardson’s actions as an officer of the District and were thus barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA). The court denied the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, defendants argued it was error to conclude the CGIA did not apply to the District’s claims against Richardson. Richardson argued that as a public employee he was immune under the CGIA with regard to the District’s tort claims against him. Here, the District, the public entity that employed Richardson, sued him for his malfeasance while in its employ. The plain language of the statute is unambiguous as to the immunity of the entity or employee when called upon to defend against tort claims, but it is silent as to suits brought by a public entity plaintiff. The CGIA clearly states that its purpose is to limit the liability of public entities in defending against tort claims, and thus to lessen the burden on taxpayers who provide funding for public entities. To prevent the District from recovering its loss by allowing Richardson to claim immunity as a public employee does not effectuate the purposes of the CGIA. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the CGIA did not on its face apply to the District’s claims against Richardson.

The order was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.