Johnson v. City of Wheat Ridge
532 P.2d 985 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The breach of a condition subsequent in a deed does not automatically revert title to the grantor. The grantor must exercise their power of termination by bringing a legal action, which is subject to the applicable statute of limitations.
Facts:
- In 1955, Judge Samuel W. Johnson conveyed a five-acre parcel of land to the Wheat Ridge Lions Foundation as a gift for a public park.
- In 1957, Judge Johnson conveyed an adjacent 14-acre parcel to Jefferson County for the Wheat Ridge Recreation District for the same purpose.
- The 1957 deed contained a condition requiring the grantee to provide a public water supply and lavatories on the premises within two years of the conveyance.
- Both deeds stipulated that failure to comply with conditions would constitute a condition subsequent, allowing the grantor or his heirs to re-enter and take possession of the property.
- The two-year period to install the water supply and lavatories expired on December 13, 1959, and this condition was not met.
- In 1969, an interest in both parcels was transferred to the newly incorporated City of Wheat Ridge.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Johnson, as executor and heir of Samuel W. Johnson's estate, filed a quiet title action against the City of Wheat Ridge in the district court (trial court).
- The plaintiff alleged that the City's interest had terminated due to the failure to satisfy conditions in the deeds and that the original conveyances were made under undue influence.
- After a trial, the district court found that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and laches and dismissed the plaintiff's quiet title action.
- Paul Johnson (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a grantor's heir's action to reclaim property for breach of a condition subsequent barred by a one-year statute of limitations when the action is filed more than ten years after the breach occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Enoch, J.
Yes, the action is barred. The breach of a condition subsequent does not automatically cause title to revert to the grantor, but instead creates a power of termination that must be enforced through a judicial proceeding. Such a proceeding is governed by the applicable statute of limitations. Here, the relevant statute, C.R.S. 1963, 118-8-4, required that any action to enforce a real property restriction be commenced within one year from the date of the violation. The violation occurred on December 13, 1959, when the two-year period to install facilities expired. Because the plaintiff's lawsuit was not filed until December 1971, it was commenced well outside the one-year limitation period and is therefore barred.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between an estate on a condition subsequent and a fee simple determinable in Colorado property law. It confirms that a condition subsequent creates a 'power of termination' or 'right of re-entry' for the grantor, which is not self-executing. The grantor must take affirmative legal action to reclaim the property, and this right can be extinguished by a statute of limitations. This precedent promotes certainty and marketability of titles by preventing the indefinite threat of forfeiture from stale, unenforced conditions, thereby encouraging grantees to invest in and improve property.
