On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9.
The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration. Subsection 210(4) of CCIOA governs when a declaration subjects “all or a portion of the real estate” to a right of withdrawal, and imposes parallel restrictions depending on whether the real estate is divided into portions:
C.R.S. §28-33.3-210(4) (emphasis added). Whereas the applicable Declaration described the lots as “Lot 1 through 94, Vista Ridge Filing No. 9,” the Court found this sufficient description of a separate portion of the Vista Ridge development, and therefore subject to Subsection 210(4)(b). In so finding, the Court concluded that CCIOA prohibited Arcadia from de-annexing the 70 lots that it still owned from the Filing No. 9 plat.
For additional information regarding Colorado construction litigation, please contact David M. McLain at (303) 987-9813 or by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com.
In the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United…
Construction projects are inherently complex, and insurance coverage plays a crucial role in managing risks,…
We are thrilled to announce that our very own Lisa Bondy Dunn has been recognized…
The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how…
We are thrilled to announce that David M. McLain, a founding partner of Higgins, Hopkins,…
In the case of Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners (2024…