Court Opinion

ID: 9551077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:47:29.375129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:01.702695
License: Public Domain

Mr.. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the Court.
S. Lee Smith as plaintiff in the trial court filed his complaint attacking the validity of annexation proceedings conducted in the county court of Arapahoe county. He alleged in the complaint that he was an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of C.R.S. 1953, 139-11-6 which provides, inter alia:
“Any person aggrieved by any annexation proceedings had under this article, may apply at any time within ninety days after the effective date of the approving ordinance to the county court of the county in which his land is situated for a hearing and appropriate relief. * * *”
He further alleged that he was a resident landowner, qualified elector and taxpayer in Arapahoe county; that although his land was not within the limits of the city of Aurora, nor within the area which the city sought to annex in the proceedings to which the complaint was directed, he was, nevertheless, an aggrieved person for the reason that if said annexation was permitted to stand his own property then became eligible for annexation because it would then be adjacent and contiguous to the newly established city boundary.
The city of Aurora filed its motion for summary judgment in which the question was raised as to whether Smith was an “aggrieved person” within the coverage of the statute. The motion for summary judgment was sustained and judgment dismissing the complaint entered. Smith seeks reversal by writ of error.
Two recent opinions of this court have dealt with the question under consideration. In Tanner, et al., v. City of Boulder, 151 Colo. 283, 377 P. (2d) 945, the par*206ties objecting to the annexation were' residents and prbperty owners of the city of Boulder. We there held, that residents of the city could be persons “aggrieved” and reversed a judgment of the trial court holding to the contrary. Following this decision the case of City and County of Denver, et al., v. O. J. Miller, et al., 151 Colo. 444, 379 P. (2d) 169, was decided. From the opinion in that case we quote the following:
“The problem here, however, is who is in fact a ‘person aggrieved’? Does it include any person except those who reside on or own land in the area to be annexed or those taxpayers and citizens who allege they are directly affected and who reside in an incorporated area to which the land is being annexed?
“The general rule is that an individual who is a resident of an unincorporated area, but not of the particular tract to be detached therefrom by annexation proceedings, is not such a person. The reason is that such person does not suffer, by reason of the annexation, a detriment peculiar to himself as distinguished from the general detriment theoretically shared by all property owners in the governmental unit. See for example Markos v. Cain, (Ohio) 154 N.E. (2d) 196 (1955).”
It was there held that persons who were not residents or landowners in the area to be annexed, or landowners or residents in the municipality to which the area is to be annexed, cannot qualify as “any person aggrieved” as that term is used in C.R.S. ’53, 139-11-6.
It is urged that Smith has a grievance that is not common to other landowners outside the area to be annexed, in that following the annexation his own property becomes vulnerable to annexation to the city due to the fact that it will then be contiguous to the city and his chances of remaining outside its boundaries will be lessened by reason thereof. However, he will not suffer in property or in person by reason of the annexation proceedings to which he objects. No burden or obligation is imposed upon him or his property by the *207adoption of the annexation ordinance of which he complains.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Frantz dissents.