Johnson v. City of Wheat Ridge
Court of Appeals of Colorado
532 P.2d 985 (1975)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Judge Samuel Johnson deeded a parcel of land to the Wheat Ridge Lions Foundation and a second parcel to Jefferson County, Colorado. The deeds for both parcels provided that they were to be used for public-park purposes and improved with drinking water, access roads, and bathroom facilities within a specified time period after conveyance. When the City of Wheat Ridge (defendant) was incorporated, both parcels were conveyed to the city with Judge Johnson's consent, subject to the original deed conditions. One of the parcels was improved according to the deed conditions, but water and bathroom facilities were never installed on the second parcel. Paul Johnson (plaintiff), in his capacity as executor of Judge Johnson’s estate, brought a quiet-title action seeking to retake possession of the parcels on the grounds of failure to fulfill conditions subsequent or, in the alternative, on the grounds that Judge Johnson made the original conveyances subject to undue influence. The district court concluded that one of the deed conditions had not been met, but that Johnson’s quiet-title action was barred by Colorado’s statute of limitations on actions affecting real property. In addition, the district court found that the evidence failed to establish undue influence and that Johnson’s action was barred by the doctrine of laches. The district court ruled in favor of the City of Wheat Ridge. Johnson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Enoch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.