CO Code § 13-51-115 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-115. Parties - Ordinances - Statutes

 When declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding. In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, such municipality shall be made a party and is entitled to be heard, and, if the statute, ordinance, or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 270, § 11. CSA: C. 93, § 88. CRS 53: § 77-11-11. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-11. History. Source: L. 23: P. 270, § 11. CSA: C. 93, § 88. CRS 53: § 77-11-11. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-11.    Cross references:   For similar provisions in court rules, see C.R.C.P. 57(j).   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For note, “Has the Colorado IRA Met an Advisory Death?”, see 8 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 140 (1936).   All persons who have an interest shall be made parties. This section provides that all persons who claim an interest in the litigation which would be affected by the declaration sought shall be made parties. Mesa County Junior Coll. Dist. v. Donner, 150 Colo. 156 , 371 P.2d 442 (1962).   It was appropriate for the insurer to name the injured party in the underlying action as a party defendant in the anticipatory declaratory judgment action to ensure that the declaratory judgment would resolve the controversy at issue with regard to all parties. Once named, it was appropriate for the injured party in the underlying action to defend against the declaratory judgment action brought by the insurer. Constitution Assoc. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 930 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1996).   Any person or entity not named as a party to an anticipatory declaratory judgment action is not bound by the court's ruling in the action. Constitution Assoc. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 930 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1996).   Possible loss of funds is sufficient interest. Under this section all persons claiming an interest in the litigation to be affected by the declaration sought shall be made parties. It is error to deny petitions of intervention of junior colleges whose rights would be directly affected by a declaration of unconstitutionality depriving them of funds. Mesa County Junior Coll. Dist. v. Donner, 150 Colo. 156 , 371 P.2d 442 (1962).   Neither this section nor C.R.C.P. 57 (j) applies to regulations promulgated pursuant to legislative grant of authority; therefore, in challenging a regulation, the attorney general need not be joined. Cont'l Liquor Co. v. Kalbin, 43 Colo. App. 438, 608 P.2d 353 (1977).   Nor do they address situation where constitutional question arises during trial. This section and C.R.C.P. 57 (j), mandating notice to the attorney general when allegations of unconstitutionality are made, do not address the situation where the question of constitutionality arises for the first time during the course of trial. Howell v. Woodlin Sch. Dist. R-104, 198 Colo. 40 , 596 P.2d 56 (1979).   Where the state was already a party to the action and the constitutionality of a statute had been raised and argued in the trial court, this section did not require additional notice to the attorney general. Raptor Educ. Found., Inc. v. State, 2012 COA 219 , 296 P.3d 352.   In suit seeking declaratory judgment that tax statute is unconstitutional, the attorney general, governor, state property tax commissioner, and county attorney are not proper parties defendant, but the state of Colorado and county officials are proper parties defendant. Lucchesi v. State, 807 P.2d 1185 (Colo. App. 1990).   Condominium association and its board members can adequately represent the interests of absent unit owners for purposes of a declaratory judgment claim concerning the validity of a declaration provision. Accordingly, plaintiff need not join absent unit owners as parties. Accetta v. Brooks Towers Residences, 2019 CO 11, 434 P.3d 600.   Applied in Hide-A-Way Massage Parlor, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 198 Colo. 175 , 597 P.2d 564 (1979); Empire Sav., Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Otero Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 640 P.2d 1151 (Colo. 1982).