Case Law Wibby v. Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs

Wibby v. Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs

Document Cited Authorities (16) Cited in (13) Related

Halpern Meacham, Madeline J. Meacham, Boulder, Colorado, for PlaintiffsAppellants

Ben Pearlman, County Attorney, David Hughes, Deputy County Attorney, Leslie Wright Lacy, Assistant County Attorney, Boulder, Colorado, for DefendantAppellee

Opinion by JUDGE DUNN

¶ 1 Unhappy that the roads in their subdivision have fallen into disrepair, property owners in unincorporated Boulder County (collectively, the Owners) filed an action to force the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners (the County) to maintain their subdivision roads. We conclude the Owners do not have standing to bring their claims against the County. We therefore affirm the dismissal of their claims.

I. Background

¶ 2 The Owners alleged the following facts and conclusions in their complaints.1 The County "accepted road dedications from over 100 subdivisions in the unincorporated county over a period of many decades." The subdivisions dedicated the roads to the County during the subdivision approval process. Once accepted, the subdivision roads became part of the county road system and, by statute, are assigned to the County for maintenance.

¶ 3 The County maintained the subdivision roads until the mid–1990s. Since that time, the County has reduced its road funding. As a result, the Owners claimed that the County has neglected to maintain the subdivision roads, resulting in "severe deterioration."

¶ 4 In their amended complaint, the Owners sought class certification and asserted claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, "mandatory injunction," mandamus, and "breach of contract damages."2 They requested a court order requiring the County to restore the subdivision roads to "[g]ood condition, within five years" and to maintain the roads in "[g]ood condition." The County moved to dismiss the amended complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5).

¶ 5 The district court granted the motion, ruling that the Owners failed to state a claim for relief. The court concluded that the pleading did not establish the existence of a valid contract or sufficient certainty as to the essential contractual terms, and because the court held that each of the claims "requires that ... a contractual relationship exist," it dismissed the amended complaint.

¶ 6 The court, however, granted the Owners leave to amend their complaint to assert "one or more claims" alleging that the County abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily in not maintaining the subdivision roads.

¶ 7 The Owners' second amended complaint asserted claims for "abuse of discretion," mandatory injunctive relief, and damages. The County moved to dismiss this complaint, arguing that the Owners lacked standing. The district court agreed and dismissed the second amended complaint.

¶ 8 The Owners appeal the dismissal of the amended and second amended complaints.

II. Standing

¶ 9 Although the district court did not address the Owners' standing as to the amended complaint, standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that may be raised at any time. Ainscough v. Owens , 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo.2004). Without standing, we cannot consider the merits of the Owners' claims. Hickenlooper v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. , 2014 CO 77, ¶ 7, 338 P.3d 1002. Thus, we must first determine whether the Owners have standing to assert each of their claims for relief—the contract claim, statutory claims, and "abuse of discretion" claim. We conclude they do not.

A. Governing Standards

¶ 10 To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he suffered an injury in fact and (2) the injury was to a legally protected interest. Wimberly v. Ettenberg , 194 Colo. 163, 168, 570 P.2d 535, 539 (1977) ; accord Ainscough , 90 P.3d at 855. If the plaintiff cannot establish both, "no relief can be afforded, and the case should be dismissed for lack of standing." Wimberly , 194 Colo. at 168, 570 P.2d at 539.

¶ 11 The first prong maintains the separation of powers doctrine and prevents a court from invading the legislative and executive spheres. Hickenlooper , ¶ 9. This prong requires a concrete adverseness that sharpens the presentation of issues before the courts. City of Greenwood Vill. v. Petitioners for Proposed City of Centennial , 3 P.3d 427, 437 (Colo.2000).

¶ 12 The second prong requires that the plaintiff demonstrate a "legal interest protecting against the alleged injury." Ainscough , 90 P.3d at 856 ; see also City of Greenwood Vill. , 3 P.3d at 437. A legally protected interest "may rest in property, arise out of contract, lie in tort, or be conferred by statute." Barber v. Ritter , 196 P.3d 238, 246 (Colo.2008). Thus, a court should consider whether the plaintiff has asserted "a claim for relief under the constitution, the common law, a statute, or a rule or regulation." Ainscough , 90 P.3d at 856.

¶ 13 Whether standing exists is a question of law that we review de novo. Barber , 196 P.3d at 245.

B. Contract Claim
1. The Alleged Contract

¶ 14 The Owners...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado – 2021
Smith v. Williams
"...*1 (D. Colo. 2010), and the court is “not at liberty to infer the existence of a contract or its terms.” Wibby v. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 409 P.3d 516, 521 (Colo.App. 2016). For the above reasons, the court finds that Mr. Smith has not plausibly alleged the existence of a contract..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2024
Coomer v. Trump
"...But an injunction, even if pleaded as a claim for relief, is a remedy, not an independent cause of action. Wibby v. Boulder Cnty. Bd, of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2016 COA 104, ¶ 4 n.2, 409 P.3d 516. ¶ 218 That remedy is not itself subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. Its fate flows from the su..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2016
People v. Alaniz
"..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2019
F K Investments v Pomeroy
"...33 Without standing, we cannot consider the merits of a party’s claims. See Wibby v. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 2016 COA 104, ¶ 9, 409 P.3d 516, 520. Only the real party in interest may pursue a cause of action. Platte Valley Mortg. Corp. v. Bickett, 916 P.2d 631, 633 (Colo. App. 199..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2017
People In Interest of D.Z.B.
"...jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time. Ainscough v. Owens , 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo. 2004) ; Wibby v. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 2016 COA 104, ¶ 9, 409 P.3d 516. ¶ 20 Standing is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. E.g., Hawg Tools, LLC v. Newsco Int'l En..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado – 2021
Smith v. Williams
"...*1 (D. Colo. 2010), and the court is “not at liberty to infer the existence of a contract or its terms.” Wibby v. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 409 P.3d 516, 521 (Colo.App. 2016). For the above reasons, the court finds that Mr. Smith has not plausibly alleged the existence of a contract..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2024
Coomer v. Trump
"...But an injunction, even if pleaded as a claim for relief, is a remedy, not an independent cause of action. Wibby v. Boulder Cnty. Bd, of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2016 COA 104, ¶ 4 n.2, 409 P.3d 516. ¶ 218 That remedy is not itself subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. Its fate flows from the su..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2016
People v. Alaniz
"..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2019
F K Investments v Pomeroy
"...33 Without standing, we cannot consider the merits of a party’s claims. See Wibby v. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 2016 COA 104, ¶ 9, 409 P.3d 516, 520. Only the real party in interest may pursue a cause of action. Platte Valley Mortg. Corp. v. Bickett, 916 P.2d 631, 633 (Colo. App. 199..."
Document | Colorado Court of Appeals – 2017
People In Interest of D.Z.B.
"...jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time. Ainscough v. Owens , 90 P.3d 851, 855 (Colo. 2004) ; Wibby v. Boulder Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 2016 COA 104, ¶ 9, 409 P.3d 516. ¶ 20 Standing is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. E.g., Hawg Tools, LLC v. Newsco Int'l En..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex