The case concerns an older mountain community in Colorado. It has four townhome units in a
single structure with shared party walls and surrounding land. A developer created the community in 1983, prior to Colorado’s adoption of UCIOA. The original documents were not particularly clear, which is what led to the dispute. The declaration indicates that there is an easement over common areas, but it did not say where the common areas were located. A contemporaneous plat also referenced the easement and had arrows pointing toward the side yards, but the parties disagree over whether this was intended to mark the boundary of the easement or the extent of the common property.
From 1983 through 2014, the community operated smoothly with the understanding that all of the grounds were common areas subject to easement rights for access. In 2014, however, a new owner purchased one of the end units and asserted that there was no easement over her lot. She eventually sued her neighbors and the association for trespass, after they walked across her driveway during a maintenance inspection. The case went to trial, and the district court ruled in favor of the association and the other residents.
A split panel of the court of appeals reversed. Although the court affirmed dismissal of the trespass claim, it concluded that the easement stopped at the arrows shown on the plat, even though this left one homeowner with no legal access to her own backyard, and even though this left the association unable to access the property it has historically maintained. The dissent criticized this conclusion and would have affirmed the trial court on slightly different grounds.
The following issues will be included in the brief, if approved:
A. By strictly limiting a community easement to arrows drawn on a plat—despite extrinsic evidence that these arrows were never intended to define the easement’s boundary—did the majority decide an issue not in accord with Colorado Supreme Court precedent?
B. By concluding that a homeowner association’s vote to amend its documents to clarify the boundaries of an implied easement would result in a taking without due process, did the majority decide an issue not in accord with other precedent?
The Association contends that the trial court properly considered the circumstances of the original documents, which refer to an unidentified common area and contemplated shared access to the rear of the building. By refusing to look beyond the plat, the court of appeals has created an absurd, unworkable result, whereby an association and some residents have no legal right to access their own backyards. The court of appeals has also hamstrung the rights of associations to amend their documents to correct errors and codify implied rights, which the Colorado Supreme Court has previously upheld.
The respondent argues that the plat is sufficiently clear on its own to identify the boundaries of the easement, and it is irrelevant if some parties lose access to their property because they can ask for permission from their neighbors if they need to access the rear of the property.
CAI should file a brief in this case because it presents an important issue for older communities that are trying to modernize their documents and correct errors in original documents. The courts should be allowed to reform these documents to reflect what the developers intended, rather than punishing community associations for technical mistakes in documents recorded decades ago by others.
This is a critical issue for communities trying to address and correct ambiguities in older documents. The issue primarily affects associations in Colorado, but any decision by our state’s highest court could have persuasive effect nationally. Furthermore, it is worrisome that the court of appeals has suggested that a homeowner vote to amend a declaration could be subject to a due process takings analysis. This is a slippery slope that could lead to improper restrictions on the ability of associations to fulfill their crucial functions.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Topic: Easements
Brief Author: Aaron Goodlock, Orten Cavanagh Holmes & Hunt, LLC.
Filed: December 6, 2024
CAI Amicus Review Panel:
Mr. Robert Diamond, Esq., CCAL, Co-Chair of Amicus Committee (VA)
Mr. Edmund Allcock, Esq., CCAL, Co-Chair of Amicus Committee (MA)
Mr. Augustus Shaw, Esq., CCAL, CCAL BOG Liaison (AZ)
Mr. Gary Daddario, Esq., CCAL (NH)
Ms. Noelle Hicks, Esq. (TX)
Mr. Todd Skowronski, Esq. (MI)
Mr. Brian Fellner, Esq. (MD)