Court Opinion

ID: 9625624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:46:06.154458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:12.120949
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
dissenting in part and concurring in part:
*282I respectfully dissent from those portions of the majority opinion numbered I, 11, and 111.
Basically, the position expressed in those sections is that under section 30-28-110(4)(b), C.R.S. 1973, the Board of County Commissioners has the power to prevent a sale in violation of the subdivision laws, but has no power to deal with the violation after the sale is completed except to seek the nominal fine provided by statute. I view such construction of the statute as completely subversive of the legislative purpose. In effect, what the majority says is that if you can conceal the negotiations and sale of real property from the commissioners until after the sale is made, the sale which you make in violation of the statute somehow attains legality. In my view, any sale which the commissioners are authorized by statute to seek to restrain before it happens, they may seek to set aside after it happens. Any other construction seems to me to be artifically and hypertechnically restrictive.