Chapter 3 - § 3.2 • UNKNOWN PARTIES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 3.2 • UNKNOWN PARTIES

Quiet title actions typically name "all unknown persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action." This language originates in C.R.C.P. 9(a)(3) and C.R.C.P. 10(a)¹⁵⁸ and is meant to sweep up any parties whose names are not shown of record and whose names are not otherwise known to the plaintiff. This designation of unknown parties has been common practice for real estate litigators for many years and it is included in form quiet title complaints.

C.R.C.P. 9(a)(4) allows a description of unknown parties who claim their interests through one or more of the named defendants by so stating. Naming "unknown parties" as the only defendants in a quiet title action is deficient because without at least one named plaintiff and one named defendant, the court will not have subject matter jurisdiction.¹⁵⁹ Further, as a practical matter, the property owner's name will be listed in the Clerk and Recorder's records, which any lawyer commencing a quiet title action must search (usually with the assistance of a title insurance company) before filing a quiet title lawsuit.

The designation of unknown parties cannot be used as a substitute for naming parties who hold a record interest or parties otherwise known to the plaintiff.¹⁶⁰ If a record owner is not named in a quiet title action, the decree will not affect his or her title.¹⁶¹ These principles were reaffirmed in Lobato v. Taylor.¹⁶² In fact, after Lobato it is difficult to imagine the type of party that could fall into the "unknown party" category.¹⁶³ Nevertheless, unless counsel would like to be the one that discovers the exception to the rule the hard way, the better practice is to continue to name unknown parties.

Service on unknown parties can be accomplished through publication.¹⁶⁴

--------

Notes:

^[158] See also C.R.C.P. 9(a)(2), (4).

^[159] Barker v. Dist. Court, 609 P.2d 628, 630 (Colo. 1980); Doe v. Heitler, 26 P.3d 539, 541 (Colo. App. 2001).

^[160] Barker, 609 P.2d at 630.

^[161] Robinson, 351 P.2d at 260.

^[162] 70 P.3d 1152, 1161 (Colo. 2003).

^[163] For a discussion of Lobato, see § 3.1.9, "Lobato v. Taylor."

^[164] See § 3.5, "Service of Process."