CO Code § 31-12-702 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 31 - Government - Municipal|Article 12 - Annexation- Consolidation - Disconnection|Part 7 - Disconnection by Court Decree - Statutory Towns|§ 31-12-702. Petition Court to Disconnect From Town

 When a tract or two or more contiguous tracts of agricultural or farm land aggregating twenty or more acres in area are embraced within the corporate limits of any town, the outer boundary of which acreage is adjacent to or upon the border of said town, the owners of said tracts of land may petition the district court for the county in which such land is situated to have the same disconnected from said incorporated town. Intersecting highways or intervening railroads shall not render said tracts of land noncontiguous or nonadjacent.   History. Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1102, § 1, effective July 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 31-8-502 as it existed prior to 1975.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 31-12-702 is similar to former § 31-8-502 prior to the 1975 repeal and reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.   This and the following section are not special or class legislation, and are not in violation of § 25 of art. V, Colo. Const. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258 , 8 P.2d 708 (1932).   Legislative intent. The clear intent of the general assembly was to permit persons owning property lying upon the border to disconnect from the town. Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Heckendorf, 126 Colo. 180 , 247 P.2d 678 (1952).   This section, permitting a joint petition, prevents a multiplicity of suits, and the causes are not necessarily interdependent. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258 , 8 P.2d 708 (1932).   The word ”owners“ was intended to have the usual and customary meaning and the party in whom legal title rests is the proper party to maintain an action for disconnection. Sheridan v. Nesbitt, 123 Colo. 121 , 227 P.2d 1000 (1950); Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Heckendorf, 126 Colo. 180 , 247 P.2d 678 (1952).   The statute makes no distinction between legal owner and equitable owner. Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Heckendorf, 126 Colo. 180 , 247 P.2d 678 (1952).   Where an owner of real estate, situated within the boundaries of a town, has entered into a contract for the sale thereof conditioned upon his ability to disconnect said property from the town, he is the ”owner“ of real estate within the meaning of the statute authorizing withdrawal of farm lands from the corporate limits. Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Heckendorf, 126 Colo. 180 , 247 P.2d 678 (1952).   Analogous to power to attach. The power to detach territory from the town is analogous to and in the same class with the power to attach. Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Heckendorf, 126 Colo. 180 , 247 P.2d 678 (1952).   This section authorizes disconnection of farm land. City of Littleton v. Wagenblast, 139 Colo. 346 , 338 P.2d 1025 (1959).   But there is no requirement that land sought to be disconnected must be in use as a farm, but only that the land is susceptible of being used for agriculture and is not in use for other purposes. Sheridan v. Nesbitt, 123 Colo. 121 , 227 P.2d 1000 (1950).   This section does not require that each separate tract should be upon or contiguous to the border, and if contiguous to each other, the fact that one of them is upon the border brings the case with the statute. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258 , 8 P.2d 708 (1932).   On the question of contiguity, ”intersecting highways or intervening railroads shall not render said tracts of land non-contiguous or non-adjacent“. Sheridan v. Fox Metal Prods. Corp., 123 Colo. 94 , 227 P.2d 1003 (1950).   Procedures specified. The provisions of this section and § 31-12-601 specify the procedure to be followed and the standards which obtain where disconnection is sought. City of Littleton v. Wagenblast, 139 Colo. 346 , 338 P.2d 1025 (1959).   Petitioners' rights unaffected by effect on third parties. If the petitioners are within the requirements under this section, their rights will not be defeated because of the effect which the proposed withdrawal will have upon the symmetry of the town, or by any situation with respect to the lands of third parties. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258 , 8 P.2d 708 (1932).   The disconnection of land from a town cannot be permitted where the result thereof would be to divide the municipality into two areas wholly isolated from each other. Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Heckendorf, 126 Colo. 180 , 247 P.2d 678 (1952).   Estoppel inapplicable. The rights created by this statute are continuing ones, and estoppel does not arise against the rights of a petitioner to disconnect his land upon the ground that he at one time consented to its inclusion within the town, if he brings himself within the provisions of the statute which authorizes disconnection, whether the estoppel was based on contract or on a judgment which resulted from a contract (stipulation). Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Savage, 172 Colo. 217 , 471 P.2d 606 (1970).   No res judicata as to lesser portion of tract. A dismissal or adverse ruling in a prior case is not a bar to resubmission of the question of disconnection of a lesser portion of a tract or tracts of land. Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Savage, 172 Colo. 217 , 471 P.2d 606 (1970).