Opinion ID: 2631724
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Restrictions on the Formation of Vested Property Rights

Text: The court of appeals found that language in the Golden Municipal Code and certain of the Agreements that precludes the creation of vested property rights negates a claim to vested contractual rights derived from the Agreements. Parker, 119 P.3d at 562. The court equated property rights with contract rights, finding no distinction between the two in this context. Id. The Golden Municipal Code provides that [n]o vested right or other such property interests or rights shall be granted or impliedly conferred upon any person or entity by the economic incentives program. G.M.C. § 18.60.080. In addition, three of the Agreements contain language that precludes the creation of vested rights to property. Parker argues that the language in the Code and some of the Agreements is contrary to the Petitioners' claim that the Agreements created vested contract rights. The Petitioners argue that vested property rights as used in the Agreements and in the Code is a term of art and refers to the state statutory scheme by which a landowner may obtain a vested property right in land from local governments. §§ 24-68-101 to 106, C.R.S. (2005). Under the statutory scheme, a vested property right is defined as the right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of a site specific development plan. § 24-68-102(5). The Golden Municipal Code provides procedures by which vested property rights are granted under a site specific development plan, in accordance with the state statutory scheme. G.M.C. §§ 18.66.010 to -080. Petitioners also point to the agreement with Golden Properties, Ltd., which grants the developer vested property rights and limits the city's ability to modify zoning of the subject property, as evidence that the Agreements were entered into in contemplation of the state statutory scheme. The Golden Properties agreement states that this Agreement shall be deemed to be a development agreement within the meaning of [section] XX-XX-XXX which provides for the duration and termination of vested property rights granted by local governments. § 24-68-104. We find the Petitioners' argument persuasive. We construe words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, accordingly. § 2-4-101, C.R.S. (2005); e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman, 898 P.2d 1049, 1054 (Colo.1995). Both the economic incentives program and the vested property rights section appear in the Golden Municipal Code in the chapter concerned with city planning and zoning. Parker has not presented a compelling reason to interpret vested property rights other than by its statutory definition and in the context of the state statutory scheme. Furthermore, use of the statutory meaning of vested property rights is consistent with the language of the Agreements. Therefore, we hold that the court of appeals erred in equating vested contract rights with the vested property rights prohibited by the economic incentives program and certain of the Agreements. The prohibitions on the creation of vested property rights did not preclude creation of vested contractual rights.