Chapter 7 - § 7.15 • VERDICT, CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 7.15 • VERDICT, CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT, AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

The award of the commission in a condemnation proceeding is generally referred to as the "certificate of ascertainment and assessment" whereas the jury award is simply the "verdict." C.R.S. § 38-1-115 identifies the specific contents of both. According to the statute, they are to contain: an accurate description of the land taken; the value of the land taken; damages, if any, to remaining property; and benefits, if any.

Within the discretion of the trial court, the award form may also include answers to any special interrogatory that will "establish the value of the property condemned on an undivided basis."⁴⁷

The contents of the award form are strictly controlled by the statute.⁴⁸ In Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Four Mile Railway Co., it was held that any attempt to submit to the jury a question not required by the statute should be properly refused.⁴⁹ Further, if upon the return of a commission certificate, counsel objects to the compliancy of the certificate, counsel should voice those objections before the commission has been discharged.⁵⁰

C.R.S. § 38-1-105(2) states that the commissioners "shall make, subscribe, and file with the clerk of the court . . . a certificate of their ascertainment and assessment." Although the statute does not indicate whether the commission's certificate must be unanimous, such is the common practice in condemnation proceedings. This is confirmed by the language of C.R.S. § 38-1-107(2), which strongly implies that jury verdicts must be unanimous: "If the jury fails to agree," successive juries must be summoned "until a verdict is had."

A jury's verdict is not considered a judgment until accepted by the court and entered as such.⁵¹ Once the jury has returned the verdict, pursuant to C.R.S. § 38-1-113, the court "shall cause the verdict of the jury and the judgment of said court to be entered upon the records of said court."

--------

Notes:

^[47] City of Gunnison v. McCabe Hereford Ranch, Inc., 702 P.2d 768, 771 (Colo. App. 1985) (reviewing court unable to verify certain assertions made by petitioner as to how the award should be interpreted because special interrogatories were not submitted to the jury). See also Evergreen Fire Prot. Dist. v. Huckeby, 626 P.2d 744, 747 (Colo. App. 1981) (special interrogatories must be propounded at the time of the valuation trial and not 13 months after the award has been rendered).

^[48]...