December 16, 2018

Colorado Court of Appeals: Special District Act Does Not Require Consent of Mineral Estate Owners to Expand Boundaries of District

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Bill Barrett Corp. v. Lembke on Thursday, September 6, 2018.

Preliminary InjunctionSpecial DistrictMineral EstatesPower to TaxSummary Judgment.

In 2009, the Sand Hills Metropolitan District (Sand Hills) included the 70 Ranch within its boundaries and began assessing ad valorem taxes on the oil and gas extracted from the mineral estate. Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation and Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc., and intervenor Noble Energy, Inc. (lessees), challenged these taxes and obtained summary judgment in Weld County District Court. Both sides appealed. In that appeal, the division agreed with the district court that when Sand Hills included the 70 Ranch it was a material departure from its 2004 service plan, which required approval from the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. Because that approval had not been obtained, the division held that Sand Hills lacked taxing authority after 2009.

Following entry of the summary judgment and before the Sand Hills appeal was filed, Lembke and 70 Ranch, LLC (the LLC) (collectively, defendants) petitioned South Beebe Draw Metropolitan District (South Beebe) to include the 70 Ranch. Defendants owned the surface estate where all of lessees’ well heads are located. Lessees were not notified of this action. South Beebe resolved to include the 70 Ranch, and the Adams County District Court approved the inclusion. Lessees filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent South Beebe from taxing oil and gas that lessees produce from the mineral estate underlying the 70 Ranch. The trial court denied the motion and entered summary judgment that under C.R.S. § 32-1-401, the severed mineral estate underlying the 70 Ranch could not be included within South Beebe because all the owners and lessees of that estate did not petition for and consent to inclusion. Lessees obtained a temporary restraining order in the Weld County District Court that prohibited the Weld County Treasurer, who had collected the disputed taxes, from disbursing the monies to South Beebe. Venue was transferred to Adams County and, following an evidentiary hearing on lessees’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found lessees had not shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits and denied the motion. Later, the court entered a final judgment against lessees on their C.R.S. § 32-1-401 claim. Lessees appealed and asked that the status quo be preserved by enjoining the treasurer from disbursing taxes collected to South Beebe. A motions division granted the request.

On appeal, lessees argued that without their consent and that of the other mineral estate owners, the 70 Ranch, or at least the underlying mineral estate, could not have been included within South Beebe. South Beebe responded that because the mineral and surface estates were severed, only the surface owners needed to petition for and consent to inclusion, and all of them did. The court of appeals first held that mineral estate owners are “fee owners,” but lessees are not. Next, because the parties agreed and the record supports that not all of the mineral estate owners consented to the 70 Ranch’s inclusion, the court considered whether South Beebe’s services can benefit the mineral estate. Because lessees did not argue that the mineral estate owners would benefit from the inclusion, the court concluded that lack of consent by all mineral estate owners did not preclude South Beebe from taxing lessees. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment as to lessee’s C.R.S. § 32-1-401(1)(a) claim.

Lessees also challenged the trial court’s ruling that lessees had not shown a reasonable probability of successfully establishing that South Beebe had violated C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2)(a) by failing to obtain Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approval for a material change in its service plan, because it had obtained approval from the planning commission. However, the court found that the actions of the planning commission and other officials did not satisfy the requirement that South Beebe had to obtain BOCC approval for a material modification of its service plan. Therefore, lessees have a reasonable probability of success in establishing that South Beebe did not obtain the requisite BOCC approval. Further, the trial court dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied a preliminary injunction on this ground alone, without considering the other factors set forth in Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648, 651 (Colo. 1982).

Lessees also argued that it was error to conclude that South Beebe’s inclusion of the 70 Ranch was not a material modification. Boundary changes alone are presumptively not material modifications, and the court found that inclusion of the 70 Ranch was just a boundary change. Thus, the trial court acted within its discretion in ruling that lessees had not shown a reasonable probability of success in challenging inclusion of the 70 Ranch as an unapproved material modification.

Finally, lessees argued that under C.R.S. § 32-1-107(2), South Beebe could not levy and collect taxes to support services if those services are already being provided by another special district (in this case, Sand Hills). The court agreed with the trial court that the statute prohibits overlapping services, not merely overlapping territory. Here, no party asked the court to resolve the factual question of overlapping services, thus the question of whether the services were overlapping was not properly before the court.

The summary judgment on lessees’ C.R.S. § 32-1-401(1)(a) claim was affirmed. The order denying lessees’ motion for a preliminary injunction was vacated. The case was remanded for the trial court to make findings on the remaining Rathke factors and reconsider whether to enter a preliminary injunction. The temporary injunction will remain in effect until the trial court enters its renewed ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

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: Including Landowners in Special District Violated Owners’ Rights to Due Process

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. on Thursday, May 31, 2018.

Special District—Taxation—Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights—Due Process—Injunction—Uniform Tax Clause of the Colorado Constitution—Mill Levy—Misappropriation of Bond Sales.

A developer created the Marin Metropolitan District, a special district, to comprise two separate projects, the Landmark Project and the European Village Project. The developer created the District as a means to use owners of condominiums in the Landmark Project to pay for improvements in the European Village Project. As part of his application to Greenwood Village for approval of the District, the developer submitted a Service Plan. Using dubious means and without notice to the Landmark Project buyers, the developer and his associates then voted in an election to organize the District and approve bonds and “taxes” to pay for the bonds. The District sold bonds to Colorado Bondshares. UMB Bank, N.A. held the bond sales proceeds in trust. Among other things, the Service Plan capped the debt service levy for the bonds at 49.5 mills, but the District imposed a levy of 59.5 mills. The developer drew on the funds, but the European Village Project infrastructure was never built.

Landmark Towers Association, Inc., a homeowners association, sued UMB, Bondshares, and the District (collectively, defendants), challenging the creation of the District. Landmark asserted that the special district can’t levy Landmark owners’ properties to pay for bonds issued by the special district, which funded improvements on other property, because the election organizing the special district, approving the bonds, and approving the levies paying for the bonds violated the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) and the Landmark owners’ rights to due process. The district court ruled that the election was illegal; Landmark is entitled to injunctive relief preventing the District’s levy; the District’s mill levy rate exceeds the legal limit; Landmark owners are entitled to a refund of excessive assessments; and Landmark owners are entitled to a “refund” of misappropriated bond sale proceeds. It enjoined the District from trying to collect levies from the Landmark owners and ordered that the owners may recover bond proceeds misappropriated by the District’s creator under TABOR.

On appeal, defendants asserted that the district court erred in finding that including the Landmark Project in the District violated the Landmark owners’ rights to due process. Specifically, defendants argued that the levy was a tax, and property subject to a tax does not need to receive any benefit in return for the tax payments. Colorado law is clear that imposing a special assessment on property that doesn’t specially benefit from the funded improvements violates the due process rights of those property owners. Here, the Landmark project was included in the District only to use it as a payment source for improvements to other property, and Landmark receives no benefit from those improvements. Further, the “tax” is in substance a special assessment because it doesn’t defray the general expenses of government but funds a private venture’s infrastructure. Because the Landmark owners derive no benefit from the improvements, the special assessments violated the owners’ rights to due process.

Defendants also argued that the district court erred in weighing the equities in imposing the injunction. The district didn’t abuse its discretion in balancing the equities.

Defendants further contended that the injunction violated the Uniform Tax Clause of the Colorado Constitution because it means that only some of the property in the district can be taxed. First, it is undisputed that defendants raised this issue for the first time in their motion for reconsideration, which was too late. Second, the Uniform Tax Clause applies only to taxes, not special assessments. Third, the injunction doesn’t obligate the District to do anything with respect to other persons or property outside the Landmark Project. Fourth, the violation of the Landmark owners’ rights to due process under both the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions entitles them to the injunctive relief they request, as a matter of law. Therefore, the district court correctly ruled on this issue.

Defendants also contended that the district court erred in ruling that the District may not levy property taxes in excess of 50 mills. The mill levy rate imposed by the District exceeds that allowed by the statutorily required service plan approved by the City of Greenwood Village. Furthermore, it did not comply with the District’s Service Plan or the financing plan. Therefore, the 59.5-mill-rate levy was illegal.

Finally, defendants contended that the district court erred in ruling that the misappropriation of bond sale proceeds violated TABOR and in ordering a refund of those proceeds because the bond proceeds aren’t “revenue.” The bond proceeds at issue are borrowed funds, not “revenue” within the meaning of the relevant TABOR provision. Further, they aren’t subject to refund because they were lent to the District by a private, outside entity and not collected from property owners. Therefore, the owners may not recover bond proceeds misappropriated by the District’s creator under TABOR. Nor may the owners recover those misappropriated funds under other provisions of the Colorado Constitution because the District is not subject to those provisions. Therefore, the district court erred in ordering refunds of the misappropriated money.

The portion of the judgment ordering TABOR refunds was reversed. The remainder of the judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded.

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.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Reversal Based on Firm and Definite Conviction that Mistake Had Been Made

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Indian Mountain Corp. v. Indian Mountain Metropolitan District on Thursday, August 11, 2016.

In 1970, Indian Mountain Corporation’s (IMC’s) predecessor in interest purchased land and water rights in Park County with the intent of creating an upscale subdivision within a community of amenities. After residential construction had begun in the Indian Mountain subdivision, SB 72-35 passed, requiring the subdivision to obtain a water-court-approved augmentation plan. The plan required homeowners to drill a well at their own expense, but for many years, IMC maintained and operated the plan at its own expense.

In 1972, the developer spearheaded the creation of the Indian Mountain Parks & Recreation District, which was converted into the Indian Mountain Metropolitan District (IMMD) in 2012 in order to be able to legally purchase and provide water services. IMMD negotiated to purchase the plan from IMC, but was not successful. In 2013, owners of a neighboring ranch approached IMC’s director about purchasing the reservoir, and eventually purchased all of the assets of IMC, including the water plan. IMC’s new owner charged IMMD for its water usage, but IMMD did not pay the invoices.

IMC filed an action in district court, seeking a declaratory injunction that it is the legal owner of the water rights and the plan and IMMD has no right, title, or interest in them. IMMD filed an answer and counterclaim, seeking a declaratory injunction that the Indian Mountain lot owners owned the plan and water rights as beneficiaries of a constructive trust. The district court issued an order in favor of IMMD. IMC filed a post-judgment motion requesting a hearing on the amount of reasonable fees it could charge IMMD for ongoing operation of the plan, which the district court denied.

On appeal, the court of appeals ruled the district court erred in finding that the water rights and augmentation plan were held in a constructive trust. The court based its reversal on a “firm and definite conviction that a mistake ha[d] been made.” Because three experts testified that the lot prices included the cost of the plan, but all advanced different theories that were directly refuted by the documentary evidence in the record, the court found reversal necessary. The court of appeals found that the district court clearly erred in finding that the lot prices included the cost of the plan, and the unjust enrichment analysis failed at the first prong.

The judgment of the district court was reversed.

Colorado Court of Appeals: TABOR Election Illegal Where Landowners Denied Participation in Election

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. on Thursday, April 21, 2016.

Real Estate—Special District—Property Taxes—Time Bar—Waiver—Bill of Costs—Prevailing Party—Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights—Notice.

A real estate developer created a special district, the Marin Metropolitan District, as a vehicle for financing the infrastructure of a to-be-developed residential community, the European Village. The District issued bonds to finance the development, which were to be paid for by property taxes imposed on landowners within the District. A group of condominium owners who did not live in European Village learned that their properties had been included in the District under suspicious circumstances. The condominium owners received no benefit from the European Village development, and they had not been notified of and did not vote in the elections to create the District and approve the bonds and taxes. Acting through their homeowners association, plaintiff Landmark Towers Association, Inc., they brought two actions, one to invalidate the creation of the District and the other—this case—to invalidate the approval of the bonds and taxes and to recover taxes they had paid to the District. Following a bench trial, the district court granted Landmark part of the relief it requested, ordering partial refund of taxes paid and enjoining the District from continuing to collect taxes from the Landmark condominium owners.

On appeal, defendants, UMB Bank, Colorado Bondshares, and the District, contended that all of Landmark’s challenges to the validity of the taxes are barred by the 30-day time limit in C.R.S. § 11-57-212. However, defendants waived this issue by not raising it at trial.

Bondshares and UMB contended that the district court erred in denying their bill of costs because they prevailed on Landmark’s fraudulent transfer and unjust enrichment claims against them. While no specific claims were asserted against Bondshares and UMB at trial, they were aligned with the District’s position and had not prevailed in the overall context of the litigation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying this claim.

Landmark contended that the district court erred in ruling that the District’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) election was valid. The court of appeals determined that the organizers who voted in the election were not eligible electors because the organizers’ contracts for options to purchase parcels were sham agreements. Therefore, the organizers illegally participated in the District’s TABOR election and their votes are void. It follows that the TABOR election was invalid. The court also held that those under contract to purchase units in the Landmark Towers were eligible electors in the TABOR election who did not receive constitutionally required notice. Therefore, the district court erred; the TABOR election itself was illegal and the District’s taxes to pay the bonds were illegally levied. The District must refund all taxes paid illegally with simple interest and the Landmark buyers are entitled to an order enjoining the District from levying any further taxes without proper voter approval.

The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Clear Language of Statute Precludes Appellate Review of Special District’s Creation

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Marin Metropolitan District v. Landmark Towers Association, Inc. on Thursday, March 27, 2014.

Special Metropolitan District—CRS § 32-1-305(7).

In 2007, a developer and five affiliated individuals (organizers) commenced proceedings under CRS §§32-1-101 to -1807 to form a special metropolitan district within the boundaries of Greenwood Village. The organizers filed a service plan with the municipality, and the city council approved it.

On September 5, 2007, a petition for organization was filed with the Arapahoe County District Court pursuant to CRS §32-1-301 and a hearing was set for October 4, 2007. Notice was published in the local newspaper and the clerk of the court issued a notice of the hearing. At the hearing, the district court entered an order directing an organizational election be held on November 6, 2007. The election was held, and on December 6, 2007, the district court entered findings and an order and decree creating the special district. The order included within the special district the Landmark Towers Association (Landmark) condominium properties, which were under construction. Approximately 130 people were under contract to purchase, but no sales had been completed.

Landmark alleged it was not until several years after the Marin Metropolitan District (District) was formed that the owners discovered facts indicating that the District had been organized through alleged misrepresentations and an asserted fraud on the court. In 2012, Landmark intervened and moved pursuant to CRCP 60(b)(2), (3), and (5) to set aside the December 2007 order for alleged fraud on the court, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction to approve the special district, and invalidity of the order due to lack of due process. The court held a three-day evidentiary hearing and issued an order on December 17, 2012 dismissing Landmark’s motion pursuant to CRS §32-1-305(7).

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the pertinent provisions of the statutory scheme for creating a special district. Landmark argued that regardless of CRS §32-1-305(7), a court has inherent power to vacate a void judgment notwithstanding a statutory time bar; has jurisdiction to set aside a previously entered order based on fraud on the court; and has a duty to provide constitutional due process, providing jurisdiction to set aside an order that is void for lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court disagreed.

CRS §32-1-305(7) is clear and unambiguous that once an order establishing a special district is entered, it “shall be deemed final, and no appeal or other remedy shall lie therefrom.” There is one exception for an action in the nature of quo warranto commenced by the attorney general within thirty days after entry of the organizational order. Finally, the subsection mandates that the organization of the district “shall not be directly or collaterally questioned in any suit, action, or proceeding except as expressly authorized in this subsection (7).” This jurisdictional issue was dispositive. Accordingly, the order was affirmed.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Special District Had Authority to Enter Into Loan Agreements and Pledge District’s Assets as Collateral

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. on Thursday, November 21, 2013.

Municipal District—Colo. Const. art. XI, § 6(1)—Collateral—Service Plan—General Obligation Debt.

Defendant Valley Bank & Trust Company (bank) appealed the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (special district). The judgment was reversed.

The bank contended that the district court erred in concluding that the loans made to the special district and the security agreements that it signed were invalid because they were not submitted to the voters in accordance with the Colorado Constitution. It was undisputed that (1) the board of the special district adopted a measure approving the debt; (2) the ballot issue specified the purposes of the debt; and (3) the voters approved the ballot issue. Therefore, the district court erred in reaching this conclusion.

The bank also contended that the district court erred in ruling that the loan to the special district was invalid based on the special district’s service plan. The service plan, however, did not prohibit the issuance of the general obligation debt, and the loan issued by the bank did not dramatically expand or change the special district’s service authority. Therefore, the loans to the special district did not violate the plan, and the special district had the statutory authority and voter approval to enter into the loans. Accordingly, the district court erred in invalidating the loan.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: C.R.S. § 32-1-1001(1) Does Not Grant Special District the Right to Assign its Right to Receive Revenue

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in SDI, Inc. v. Pivotal Parker Commercial, LLC on Thursday, October 11. 2012.

Breach of Contract—Assignment—CRS § 32-1-1001(1).

In this dispute over the terms of several contracts, defendant Pivotal Parker Commercial, LLC (Pivotal) appealed the trial court’s entry of judgment following a bench trial in favor of plaintiff SDI, Inc. (SDI). The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

In 1984, the Town of Parker annexed a parcel of undeveloped land known as Stroh Ranch. Cherry Creek South Metropolitan District No. 1 (District) thereafter incurred an obligation to one of the original developers of the Stroh Ranch (later called Stroh Ranch Development, LLC, or SRD) for $11,130,000. SRD later assigned the right to receive development fee revenue to SDI by a purchase and sale agreement (Seventh Amendment). SDI entered into a real estate purchase and sale contract with Pivotal (SDI–Pivotal Contract) for “Filing Nos. 14 and 15.” SDI later sought a declaratory judgment and damages for unpaid development fees pursuant to the Seventh Amendment and the SDI–Pivotal Contract. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of SDI.

On appeal, Pivotal contended that the trial court erred when it determined that the District validly assigned its right to receive development fee revenue to SDI, and that SDI was entitled to collect, and charge interest on, that amount. The trial court erred in concluding it must look to common law to fill in the statutory silence in CRS § 32-1-1001(1), which defines a special district’s common powers. The statute does not give the District the power to assign its right to receive revenue to a private party. The District’s assignment to SDI in paragraph 6 of the Seventh Amendment, therefore, went beyond the District’s statutory and constitutional powers. Consequently, paragraph 6 of the Seventh Amendment is void, and the trial court erred when it determined that the District validly assigned its right to receive development fee revenue to SDI, and that SDI was entitled to collect, and charge interest on, that amount. The trial court further erred when it declared that SDI has a perpetual lien on Filing Nos. 14 and 15.

Pivotal also argued that the trial court erred when it concluded that Pivotal breached its contract with SDI. Neither the SDI–Pivotal Contract, the E&T Contract, nor the E&T Contract Assignment provided that Pivotal must transfer a portion of the purchase price of the E&T Contract to SDI as development fees. Therefore, Pivotal did not breach the contract.

Summary and full case available here.