Chapter 12 - § 12.14 • WHAT ABOUT LOBATO V. TAYLOR?

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 12.14 • WHAT ABOUT LOBATO v. TAYLOR?

The question is, does the law of the Taylor Ranch case affect quiet title actions under Rule 105, and if so, how?

The answer to this question is derived primarily from the third Taylor Ranch decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, handed down on April 28, 2003. Lobato v. Taylor, 70 P.3d 1152 (Colo. 2003) (Lobato II). Prior to this decision, we have Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938 (Colo. 2002) and Rael v. Taylor, 876 P.2d 1210 (Colo. 1994). In Lobato II, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether Taylor had exercised reasonable diligence in a Torrens title registration action, commenced in federal district court in 1965, to identify and personally serve all reasonably ascertainable persons with an interest in the property. The Colorado Torrens Title Registration Act designates as defendants "[a]ll persons named in the application [for registration] or found by the report of the examiner [appointed by the court] as being in possession of the premises or as having of record any lien, encumbrance, right, title, or interest in the land, and all other persons . . . or parties unknown." C.R.S. § 38-36-120. Service of summons upon "all such unknown persons or parties" is by publication once each week for three weeks. C.R.S. § 38-36-121.

Previously, in its 1994 decision in Rael v. Taylor, the court had decided that those persons claiming an interest in the Taylor Ranch, predominately Spanish-speaking, Costilla County landowners, were denied their constitutional rights to due process if Taylor had not exercised such reasonable diligence. In Lobato II, the court held that the publication notice given by Taylor in his Torrens action violated due process because Taylor knew that all Costilla County landowners claimed rights to use the ranch and with reasonable diligence he could have identified the names and addresses of those landowners and served them personally.

The relevance of Taylor's Torrens case to quiet title actions is clear from the language used in the supreme court's opinion. "Taylor sought to quiet title in the land via a Torrens Action," the court said. Lobato II, 70 P.3d at 1157. The court then considered "whether Taylor's efforts in notifying potential claimants of his intent to quiet title in the Taylor Ranch were adequate to comply with the requirements of due process." Id. at 1159.

To comply with due process, the court said, Taylor was required to serve personally each individual with an identifiable interest...