UMB Bank, N.A.; Colorado Bondshares - A tax exempt fund; and Marin Metropolitan District, a Colorado Special District, Petitioners
Landmark Towers Association, Inc., a Colorado nonprofit corporation, by EWP-GV, LLC, as receiver for 7677 East Berry Avenue Associates, LP, its Declarant. Respondent
to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case Nos.
14CA2099 & 14CA2463
Attorneys for Petitioners: Kutak Rock LLP Neil Arney Thomas
W. Snyder Mia K. Della Cava Denver, Colorado McNamara Law
Firm, P.C. John N. McNamara Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent: Perkins Coie LLP Michael L. Bender
Laura Cramer-Babycz Denver, Colorado Burg Simpson Eldredge
Hersh & Jardine, P.C. Brian K. Matise Nelson Boyle
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Association of Home
Builders: Icenogle Seaver Pogue, P.C. Jennifer L. Ivey
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal Bond Dealers
Association, Inc.: Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Joseph J.
Bronesky Peter J. Whitmore Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League:
Colorado Municipal League Tami Yellico Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Special District Association of
Colorado: Butler Snow LLP Martina Hinojosa Monica Rosenbluth
This case involves the establishment and funding activities
of petitioner Marin Metropolitan District (the
"District"), a special district that was created as
a vehicle to finance the infrastructure of a proposed
residential community. In late 2007, the organizers of the
District held an organization election and approved the
creation of the District. At the same time, pursuant to
Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights ("TABOR"),
the organizers voted to approve the issuance of bonds and to
impose property taxes to pay the bonds on landowners within
A group of condominium owners subsequently learned that their
properties had been included in the District under what they
believed to be suspicious circumstances and that they had
been assessed the above-noted taxes. Acting through their
homeowners' association, respondent Landmark Towers
Association, Inc., ("Landmark") the owners brought
two lawsuits, one to invalidate the creation of the District
and the other (this case) to invalidate the approval of the
bonds and taxes and to recover taxes that they had paid to
the District, among other things.
The district court ultimately ordered a partial refund of the
taxes paid by the condominium owners and enjoined the
District from assessing future taxes on the owners in order
to pay its obligations under the bonds. Both sides appealed,
and in a published decision, a unanimous division of the
court of appeals concluded, in pertinent part, that
Landmark's challenge to the bond and tax election was
timely and that the election violated TABOR and applicable
statutes. Landmark Towers Ass'n v. UMB Bank,
N.A., 2016 COA 61, ¶ 4, ___ P.3d ___.
Respondents petitioned for certiorari, and we granted the
petition to consider whether Landmark's challenge to the
bond and tax election was timely and whether the election was
otherwise validly conducted. 
We now reverse. Section 1-11-213(4), C.R.S. (2017), requires
a party seeking to contest an election like that present here
to file a written statement of intent to contest the election
within ten days after the official survey of returns has been
filed with the designated election official. The statute
further provides, "If a written statement of intent to
contest the election is filed more than ten days after the
completion of the official survey of returns, no court shall
have jurisdiction over the contest." Id.
Here, it is undisputed that Landmark did not file the
requisite written statement until more than three years after
the official survey of the election returns was filed.
Moreover, pursuant to our decision in Cacioppo v. Eagle
County School District Re-50J, 92 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2004),
Landmark's challenge was subject to section
1-11-213(4)'s time bar, and because section 1-11-213(4)
is a non-claim statute, the equitable estoppel doctrine does
Accordingly, we conclude that Landmark's challenge to the
bond and tax election at issue was time barred, and thus, we
reverse the judgment of the division below and remand for
further proceedings. In light of this disposition, we need
not reach the other issues on which we granted certiorari.
Facts and Procedural Background
In 2005, 7677 East Berry Avenue Associates, L.P.
("7677"), which was managed by Zachary M. Davidson,
created a development plan for a project that came to be
known as the "Landmark Towers." The Landmark Towers
would be a combined residential and retail development in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.
Pursuant to an agreement between 7677 and Greenwood Village,
7677 was to be provided with a portion of certain sales tax
revenues generated by the businesses occupying the property.
Such revenues were offered as an inducement to 7677 to
complete public improvements on the project.
As pertinent here, Davidson also managed Everest Marin, L.P.
("Everest"). Everest sought to construct a project
called "European Village, " which was to be built
directly to the south of the Landmark Towers. Everest did
not, however, intend for European Village to provide for its
own infrastructure. Instead, Everest intended to form a
special district that would issue general obligation or
revenue bonds to finance the infrastructure. Because Davidson
recognized that the European Village project would not have
been viable without the assessed value and the taxes on the
Landmark Towers, he decided to incorporate the Landmark
Towers into the then-proposed District.
Prior to the creation of the District, approximately 130
people had signed contracts to purchase condominiums in the
Landmark Towers, although none had proceeded to closing. In
connection with these ...