Summaries of Published Opinions, 0419 COBJ, Vol. 48, No. 4 Pg. 94
| Position | Vol. 48, 4 [Page 94] |
COLORADO SUPREME COURT
February 11, 2019
2019 CO 11. No. 18SA127. In re Accetta v. Brooks Towers Residences Condominium Association, Inc. Civil Procedure—Joinder— Declaratory Judgments—Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act.
In this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court's order requiring plaintiff to join as indispensable parties the approximately 500 individual unit owners in the Brooks Tower Residences (Brooks Tower) rather than proceeding solely against this condominium association and its board members. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment invalidating a provision of his condominium association's declaration that provides for ownership interests to be allocated in the sole discretion of the declarant. The district court concluded that all of the Brooks Tower unit owners are indispensable parties and must be joined. The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why the district court's ruling should not be vacated. The Court concluded that the condominium association can adequately represent the interests of the absent unit owners for purposes of plaintiff's declaratory judgment action. Therefore, plaintiff need not join those absent owners. The Court made the rule to show cause absolute.
February 19, 2019
2019 CO 12. No. 16SA256. Well Augmentation Subdistrict of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Centennial Water and Sanitation District. Water Law—Burden of Proof.
Centennial Water and Sanitation District (Centennial) appealed from an order of the water court dismissing its objection to the Well Augmentation Sub district's (WAS) proposal to use additional sources of replacement water for its previously decreed augmentation plan. Centennial had asserted that WAS failed to comply with the notice requirements of the decree itself and that this failure amounted to a per se injury, for which it was entitled to relief without any further showing of operational effect. The water court heard Centennial's motion objecting to WAS's proposed addition of new sources of replacement water and, without requiring WAS to present evidence, found that Centennial failed to establish prima facie facts of WAS's inability to deliver augmentation water in quantity or time to prevent injury to other...
To continue reading
Request your trial