Chapter 3 - § 3.9 • EQUITABLE CHALLENGES IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 3.9 • EQUITABLE CHALLENGES IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS

A condemnation action is generally viewed as a proceeding in rem.⁷⁶ As such, it is essentially an action against property, not against persons. Because equity acts in persona, and not in rem, equitable principles are rarely relevant to the taking of land. Nevertheless, in a few instances the courts have applied equity, not to defeat the power of condemnation, but to compel or preclude certain actions by the condemning entity. For instance, in Piz v. Housing Authority of the City & County of Denver, the principles of estoppel were employed to preclude a condemning agency from abandoning a condemnation action after it was shown that the landowner had detrimentally relied on the taking of his property.⁷⁷ And in Evergreen Fire Protection District v. Huckeby, a petitioner was precluded from amending the pleadings in a condemnation action after an award had been returned that it was dissatisfied with, on grounds of unfairness to the landowner and reliance on the petitioner's prior representations.⁷⁸ Finally, in Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, the supreme court reversed that part of a court of appeals ruling that precluded an owner's claim that a condemnor had violated a written promise to engage in good faith negotiations on which the owner had relied.⁷⁹ The court held that the facts of the case stated a viable claim for relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

--------

Notes:

^[76] Wilson v. Frederick Ross Inv. Co., 180 P.2d 226 (Colo. 1947) (appropriation of private property for public use is generally viewed as a proceeding in rem). See also City of Grand Junction v. Kannah Creek Water Users Ass'n, 557 P.2d 1173 (Colo. 1976).

^[77] Piz v. Housing Auth. of the City & County of Denver, 289 P.2d 905 (Colo. 1955). This case is discussed in further detail in Chapter 13, "Abandonment of Condemnation Actions." See also...