Capitol Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Smith
1957 Colo. LEXIS 240, 316 P.2d 252, 136 Colo. 265 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court's enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant's automatic forfeiture clause constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of whether the clause is characterized as a future or executory interest.
Facts:
- On May 9, 1942, several owners of lots in Block 6, Ashley’s Addition to Denver, including the predecessors in title to both the plaintiffs and defendants, entered into a private agreement.
- The agreement stipulated that the lots should not be sold or leased to 'colored persons' before January 1, 1990.
- The agreement contained a forfeiture clause stating that if a property was sold or leased in violation of the restriction, the title would be forfeited to and vest in the other lot owners who recorded a notice of their claim.
- The plaintiffs, who are Black, purchased one of the lots covered by this agreement.
- After the plaintiffs purchased the property, the defendants, who were also party to the agreement, recorded a Notice of Claim asserting title to the plaintiffs' property based on the forfeiture clause.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed an action in a Colorado trial court seeking to quiet title to their property and obtain a declaratory judgment that a racially restrictive covenant was unenforceable.
- The defendants filed an answer and counterclaim, asserting that they owned the property due to the covenant's forfeiture provision and asking the court to quiet title in their favor.
- The trial court, after reviewing stipulated facts, entered a decree and declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The trial court ruled that enforcing the covenant would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and quieted title in the plaintiffs.
- The defendants appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court's enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant's automatic forfeiture clause, which purports to divest title from a buyer of a prohibited race and vest it in other landowners, constitute state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Knauss
Yes. A state court cannot enforce a racially restrictive covenant's automatic forfeiture clause, as doing so constitutes state action that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the forfeiture created a valid "executory interest" that vested automatically without judicial action, thereby avoiding the state action doctrine established in Shelley v. Kraemer. The court reasoned that regardless of the legal terminology used to describe the mechanism—be it an "executory interest" or a simple covenant—its purpose and effect is to enforce racial discrimination. Any judicial act that gives effect to such a discriminatory agreement, including recognizing the forfeiture of title and quieting title in the defendants, is unconstitutional state action. The court stated, "No matter by what ariose terms the covenant under consideration may be classified by astute counsel, it is still a racial restriction in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment..."
Analysis:
This decision extends the principle of Shelley v. Kraemer, which prohibited state courts from using injunctions to enforce racially restrictive covenants. The court closes a potential loophole by clarifying that any form of judicial enforcement, including recognizing an 'automatic' forfeiture of title, constitutes prohibited state action. It prevents property owners from circumventing Shelley through creative legal drafting, such as framing a restriction as a future interest rather than a simple covenant. The ruling solidifies the principle that the judiciary cannot be used as an instrument to effectuate private racial discrimination in housing, regardless of the legal mechanism employed.
