Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals expressly affirms the continuing viability of the common-law after-acquired title doctrine and expressly recognizes utility easements by necessity

On May 27, 2021, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73.  In that case, the court decided two significant issues that apparently had never been expressly ruled on by a Colorado appellate court before: (1) that Colorado’s common-law after-acquired title doctrine was not abrogated by adoption of the after-acquired interest statute; and (2) that utility easements may be implied by necessity.

As is often the case in matters involving access and implied property rights, the facts and history underlying Amada are complicated, but the case’s two most significant rulings are not. … Read More »

Author: Luke Mecklenburg | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

Earlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.”  See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020).  As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.”  Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context.… Read More »

Author: Luke Mecklenburg | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Colorado Court of Appeals clarifies that a finding of irreparable harm is not required to enter a permanent injunction to enforce an easement

On March 21, 2019, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Rinker v. Colina-Lee, holding for the first time that the “irreparable harm” element typically required to grant a permanent injunction is not needed for injunctions issued to enforce easements. 2019 COA 45. While the facts underlying the case are long and somewhat convoluted, for the purposes of the court’s “irreparable harm” holding, the case involves two real property owners along a private road governed by an association agreement. Id., ¶¶ 12-14. Uphill property alterations by the association and other members caused debris to accumulate on Mr.… Read More »

Author: Luke Mecklenburg | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Easements Made Easier: Building Pipelines with the Power of Eminent Domain Under the Natural Gas Act

By: Richard H. Herold

Any person or entity seeking to construct a natural gas pipeline and successful in obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may exercise the power of eminent domain to obtain easements across private property when those easements are necessary and cannot be obtained consensually (by contract) from the landowners.  Columbia Gas Transmission, L.L.C. v. 76 Acres More or Less, 2014 WL 2960836 (D. Md. June 27, 2014).  the Columbia Gas Court recently held that (1) the property’s legal description need not be attached to sufficiently identify the property to be condemned, and (2) even in the absence of a federal condemnation statute authorizing immediate possession of the property, the condemning plaintiff may obtain an order to take immediate possession of the property since it would be wasteful and inefficient to skip over one or more parcels in the construction process – only if the condemning plaintiff is capable of satisfying the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P.… Read More »

Author: Richard Herold | Leave a comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

A Compilation and Summary of Real Estate Related Legislation Enacted by the 51st Arizona Legislature

On Friday June 14, 2013, at 12:59 a.m., on the 152nd day of the regular legislative session, the 51st Arizona Legislature adjourned sine die, or “without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing.”  Generally, except as otherwise noted in the act itself, legislation in Arizona is not effective until 90 days after the regular session adjourns sine die.  Accordingly, on Friday, September 13, 2013, the vast majority of legislation enacted by the Arizona Legislature in the 2013 legislative session went into effect.

Although real estate related bills certainly did not dominate the legislative landscape this past session, they still held their own. … Read More »

Author: Adam Lang | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article: