Monument Case Asks Whether Private Residential Covenants Require “Just Compensation” under Takings Clause
In This Section
By Laurel Witt, CML Staff Attorney
Monument Case Asks Whether Private Residential Covenants Require “Just Compensation” under Takings Clause
The Colorado Supreme Court has signaled that it intends to revisit the question of whether municipalities and other condemning authorities must pay just compensation to eliminate private restrictive covenants on property acquired by the municipality. A case deriving from 1956 held that they are not property rights, and therefore not entitled to just compensation. If the Supreme Court does overturn this decision, it will be more difficult and much more expensive to quire property for municipal use in covenant-controlled subdivisions.
In this case, the Town of Monument purchased a lot in a single-family residential neighborhood to install a water tank. This lot, along with every lot in the neighborhood, was subject to a private restrictive covenant limiting the lot to residential uses. Monument filed an eminent domain action to condemn-out the covenant restriction on the lot. The surrounding lot owners objected, claiming entitlement to just compensation. Based on the 1956 Colorado Supreme Court decision, the Court of Appeals held that Monument did not need to pay just compensation.
The CML brief supports Monument’s argument that the 1956 decision should be upheld. In the alternative, the League also argues that if the Colorado Supreme Court overturns the old precedent, the decision should narrow the applicability of the requirement that private restrictive covenants are compensable property.
Town of Monument v. State by and through State Board of Land Commissioners, No. 17CA1663, 2018 WL 4781388 (Colo. App. Oct. 4, 2019), cert. granted, Decker v. Town of Monument, No. 18SC793, 2019 WL 2336834 (Colo. June 3, 2019).