Hinojos v. Lohmann (2008)

Buell v. Redding Miller, I nc. , 163 Colo. 286, 290 , 430 P.2d 471, 473 (1967) ; see also Hinojos , 182 P.3d at 697 (“[T]he plaintiff may not capitalize on the weakne ss of the defendant ’ s claim to title, but can succeed only by establishing the strength of his or her own claim to title. ”). ¶ 16 Hill does not allege that he has title.

P. 105, which authorizes “[a]n action ... brought for the purpose of obtaining a complete adjudication of the rights of all parties thereto, with respect to any real property and for damages, if any, for the withholding of possession” Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 696-97 (Colo. App. 2008) (citing Colo. R.

While Defendants are correct that Plaintiff holds the ultimate “burden of establishing title superior to that claim by the defendant,” Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 697 (Colo. App. 2008), the Court does not need to determine at this time whether Plaintiff meets that burden.

See Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 697 (Colo. App. 2008) (“[T]he plaintiff may not capitalize on the weakness of the defendant’s claim to title, but can succeed only by establishing the strength of his or her own claim to title.”); Morrissey, 147 Colo. at 513 , 364 P.2d at 189 (same). 31 ¶ 54 Although GNP named as defendants the owners of all the parcels abutting 11th Street, several of those landowner defendants defaulted or disclaimed any interest in the subject propert…

Sumerel v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 232 P.3d 128, 132 (Colo.App. 2009). ¶ 21 Where, as here, the court’s decision is based on stipulated facts and exhibits, “we are obligated to make an independent judgment on the merits.” Hinojos v. Lohman, 182 P.3d 692, 694-96 (Colo.App.2008) (quoting Bolser v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 100 P.3d 61 , 53 (Colo.App.2004)).

Hino jos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 694-95 (Colo.App.2008). 3.

The Path Easement Granted by the Amended PUD Constitutes Superior Title for Purposes of C.R.C.P. 105 The trial court held that plaintiffs "failed to show that any property right they might have is superior to COL's right." Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 697 (Colo.App.2008) ("The plaintiff in a quiet title action has the burden of establishing title superior to that claimed by the defendant.").

Chatham v. Blount County, 789 So.2d 235, 241 (Ala.2001); Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 701 (Colo.Ct.App.2008); Martell v. Stewart, 6 Kan.App.2d 387 , 628 P.2d 1069, 1070-71 (1981); Washington Sec. and Inv.

Chatham v. Blount County, 789 So.2d 235, 241 (Ala. 2001); Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 701 (Colo.Ct.App.2008); Martell v. Stewart, 6 Kan.App.2d 387 , 628 P.2d 1069, 1070-71 (1981); Washington Sec. and Inv.

Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 695 (Colo.App.2008).

Id. (quoting Hopkins, 564 P.2d at 420 )); see also Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 702 (Colo. App. 2008) (the court “should resolve all issues apparent from the evidence” (citing Keith v. Kinney, 961 P.2d 516, 519 (Colo. App. 1997))). ¶ 19 The Proctor parties do not otherwise challenge the court’s finding of a prescriptive easement along the Eagle Ditch or its determination that the gates constituted an unreasonable 9 interference with the ditch easement.

See Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692 , 23 700 (Colo. App. 2008) (“Color of title is defined as that which in appearance has the semblance of title, either legal or equitable, but which in fact is no title.

Ditch & Reservoir Co., 723 P.2d 736, 738 (Colo. 1986); see also Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 697 (Colo. App. 2008).

See Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 702 (Colo.App.2008); see also Mission Denver Co. v. Pierson, 674 P.2d 363, 365-66 (Colo.1984) (C.A.R. 38(d) should be used to penalize "egregious conduct").

See Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 694-95 (Colo.App.2008).

See De Foresta v. Gast, 20 Colo. 307, 309-10 , 38 P. 244 , 245-46 (1894); see also Hinojos v. Lohmann, 182 P.3d 692, 700 (Colo.App.2008).