HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021CV30426 - City Of Fort Collins V. Aaron Million, Jordan Fox-Million; Million Agricultural Investments, Ltd., Arlo Richardson Aka Arlo Lee Richardson; The Pleasant Valley And Lake Canal Ditch Company - 021 - Million Answer And Counterclaim Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
1 of 12
District Court, Larimer County, Colorado
201 LaPorte Avenue, Suite 100
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(970) 494-3500
▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲
Plaintiff: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Colorado
home rule municipality,
v.
Defendants: AARON MILLION aka AARON P.
MILLION; JORDAN FOX-MILLION;
MILLION AGRICULTURAL
INVESTMENTS, LTD., a Colorado
limited partnership; ARLO
RICHARDSON aka ARLO LEE
RICHARDSON; THE PLEASANT
VALLEY AND LAKE CANAL DITCH
COMPANY; and ALL UNKNOWN
PERSONS WHO CLAIM AN
INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THIS ACTION.
Attorneys for Defendants Aaron Million aka Aaron P.
Million, Jordan Fox-Million, Million Agricultural
Investments, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, and
Arlo Richardson aka Arlo Lee Richardson
Crystal J. McDonough, #44621
Scott Slawson, #46001
McDonough Law LLC
1635 Foxtrail Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-776-3311
Fax: 877-800-5583
crystal@mcdonoughlawllc.com
scott@mcdonoughlawllc.com
Case No.: 2021CV030426
Div.: 5B Ctrm.:
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANTS AARON MILLION, JORDAN
FOX-MILLION, MILLION AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENTS, LTD., AND ARLO
RICHARDSON
COMES NOW, defendants Aaron Million aka Aaron P. Million, Jordan Fox-Million,
Million Agricultural Investments, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, and Arlo Richardson aka
Arlo Lee Richardson, (“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, Crystal J.
McDonough and Scott Slawson of the law office of McDonough Law LLC, and hereby submit
their Answer and Counter claim as follows:
DATE FILED: September 30, 2021 3:46 PM
FILING ID: F16B821611053
CASE NUMBER: 2021CV30426
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
2 of 12
PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff City of Fort Collins (“City”) is a home rule municipality of the State of Colorado
organized and existing under a home rule charter pursuant to Colo. Const. art. XX. The
City’s address is 300 W. LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 1.
2. This quiet title action focuses on real property located in Larimer County and legally
described in attached Exhibit 1 (“Parcel II”).
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 2.
3. Defendant Aaron Million a/k/a Aaron P. Million (“Million”) is an individual residing at
1007 N. Overland Trail, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado 80521.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 3.
4. Defendant Jordan Fox-Million (“Fox-Million”) is an individual residing at 1007 N.
Overland Trail, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado 80521.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 4.
5. Defendant Million Agricultural Investments, Ltd. (“Million Agricultural”) is a Colorado
limited partnership with a principal office address at 245 S. Cascade Ave., Montrose,
Colorado 81401.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 5.
6. Defendant Arlo Richardson a/k/a Arlo Lee Richardson (“Richardson”) is an individual
residing in Weld County, Colorado. Richardson owns real property located to the east of
the Parcel II and legally described on the deed attached as Exhibit 2 (“Richardson
Property”).
ANSWER: Defendant Arlo Lee Richardson is the fee simple owner of the property at issue
subject to an installment land contract with Defendant Jordan Fox-Million. Defendants
otherwise admit the allegations in paragraph 6.
7. Defendant The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company (“PVLC”) is a Colorado
nonprofit corporation with a principal office at 160 W. Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado 80524. PVLC owns the canal that forms the boundary between Parcel II and the
Richardson Property (“PVLC Canal”).
ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 7.
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
3 of 12
8. There may be persons interested in the subject matter of this action whose names cannot
be inserted herein because the names are unknown to the City, although diligent efforts
have been made to ascertain the names of such persons. Those persons have been made
Defendants and designated as “all unknown persons who claim an interest in the subject
matter of this action.”
ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 8.
9. This action concerns the City’s real property and the determination of ownership of real
property located in Larimer County, as well as tortious conduct that occurred in Larimer
County. Accordingly, venue is proper under C.R.C.P. 98(a) and (c)(5).
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute.
Defendants deny that they engaged in any tortious conduct and otherwise admit that venue
is proper as stated in paragraph 9.
10. The Court has jurisdiction under Colo. Const. art. 6, § 9 and C.R.S. § 13-1-124.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 10 and further agree that this
Court has jurisdiction to decide the competing claims of the parties to the property in
dispute.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
11. In November 2007, the City brokered a deal to purchase real property located west of
North Overland Trail between Horsetooth Reservoir and Claymore Lake in the Reservoir
Ridge Natural Area (generally, “City Property”) from the Colorado State University
Research Foundation, Inc. (“CSURF”).
ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 11.
12. The Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System, as the successor in
interest to the State Board of Agriculture (“CSU”), conveyed the two parcels of land
making up the City Property to CSURF via a Quit Claim Deed dated November 19, 2007,
and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office at reception number
20070087381 on November 26, 2007 (“City Property Deed”). Exhibit 3 is an accurate
copy of the deed conveying the City Property from CSU to CSURF.
ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 12.
13. After receiving the City Property from CSU, CSURF then conveyed the City Property to
the City via two deeds, one for each parcel.
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
4 of 12
ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 13.
14. CSURF conveyed approximately 265 acres (“Parcel I”) to the City via a Special
Warranty Deed dated November 20, 2007, and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk
and Recorder’s office at reception number 20070087382 on November 26, 2007 (“Parcel
I Deed”). Exhibit 4 is an accurate copy of the deed conveying Parcel I from CSURF to
the City.
ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 14.
15. CSURF conveyed Parcel II, consisting of approximately 2 acres, to the City via a Quit
Claim Deed dated November 20, 2007, and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder’s office at reception number 20070087383 on November 26, 2007 (“Parcel II
Deed”). Exhibit 5 is an accurate copy of the deed conveying Parcel II from CSURF to the
City.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 15.
16. The real property conveyed from CSURF to the City by the Parcel II Deed is Parcel II,
which is the subject to this quiet title action.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 16.
17. Parcel II is bounded on the east by the PVLC Canal, which separates Parcel II from the
Richardson Property. The r emaining sides of the City Parcel are bounded by property
owned by the City. Exhibit 6 is a representation of Parcel II in relation to Parcel I, the
Richardson Property, and other City-owned land.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 17.
18. Million, Fox-Million, Million Agricultural, and Richardson each claim an ownership
interest in Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 18.
19. Million, Fox-Million, Million Agricultural, and Richardson each claim an easement or
right-of-way on or through Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 19.
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
5 of 12
20. Richardson and Fox-Million are parties to a Written Notice of Transfer by Land Contract
dated June 6, 2017, and recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office on
July 18, 2017, at reception number 20170047140 (“Contract for Deed”). An accurate copy
of the Contract for Deed is attached as Exhibit 7.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 20. As to the documents and/or
transactions referenced, they speak for themselves, and Defendants are presently without
knowledge or information to form a belief as their authenticity.
21. Richardson and Fox-Million amended the Contract for Deed via a July 11, 2018,
Amendment to Contract for Deed recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s
office on October 24, 2018, at reception number 20180065238 (“Amended Contract for
Deed”). An accurate copy of the Amended Contract for Deed is attached as Exhibit 8.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 21. As to the documents and/or
transactions referenced, they speak for themselves, and Defendants are presently without
knowledge or information to form a belief as their authenticity.
22. Fox-Million claims an interest in the Richardson Property through the Contract for Deed,
as amended by the Amended Contract for Deed. Fox-Million also possesses the Richardson
Property pursuant to the Amended Contract for Deed.
ANSWER: Defendant Arlo Lee Richardson is the fee simple owner of the property at issue
subject to an installment land contract with Defendant Jordan Fox-Million. Defendants
otherwise admit the allegations in paragraph 22.
23. Upon information and belief, Million, Fox-Million, Million Agricultural, and Richardson
claim an interest in Parcel II through a grant of real property from Ernest F. Langholf and
Parke D. Langholf Revocable Trust Created by Instrument dated June 25, 1999 (“Langholf
Trust”) to Million Agricultural. The deed conveying real property from the Langholf Trust
to Million Agriculture was recorded with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office
on October 14, 1999, at reception number 0099090029, an accurate copy of which is
attached as Exhibit 9.
ANSWER: Defendant Arlo Lee Richardson is the fee simple owner of the property at issue
subject to an installment land contract with Defendant Jordan Fox-Million. Defendants
otherwise admit the allegations in paragraph 23.
24. Parcel II was not part of the Langholf Trust property conveyed to Million Agricultural.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 24.
25. Instead, before Parcel II belonged to CSU and the City, it was part of real property owned
by Clyde White. Mr. White conveyed the portion of his property south and west of the
PVLC Canal, which included Parcel I and Parcel II, to the State Board of Agriculture—
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
6 of 12
CSU’s predecessor in interest—via a deed recorded on May 25, 1942, with the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder’s office at Book 740, Page 163, an accurate copy of which is
attached as Exhibit 10.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 25. As to the documents and/or
transactions referenced, they speak for themselves, and Defendants are presently without
knowledge or information to form a belief as their authenticity.
26. Mr. White retained ownership of his remaining property, which includ ed the Richardson
Property, until 1943, when he sold it to Nicholas and Catherine Stadelman via a deed
recorded on December 7, 1943, with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder’s office at
Book 763, Page 295, an accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 11.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 26. As to the documents and/or
transactions referenced, they speak for themselves, and Defendants are presently without
knowledge or information to form a belief as their authenticity.
27. PVLC has made no claim to hold any interest in any portion of Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 27. In Defendant Pleasant Valley
and Lake Canal Ditch Company’s Answer to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Quiet Title,
and Trespass filed July 20, 2021 (hereafter referred to as the “PVLCC Answer”), PVLCC
stated the following: “Defendant PVLCC denies the allegations in paragraph 27. PVLCC
has a right to the ditch in place and the right to access/travel along both sides of the ditch
and the right to operate, maintain and repair its ditch.”
28. The City owns Parcel II in fee simple superior to any claim of interest by the Defendants.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 28.
29. In October 2019, the City surveyed Parcel II. As part of the survey, the City installed
stakes along the eastern property line of Parcel II along the PVLC Canal.
ANSWER: Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 29.
30. Million entered onto Parcel II and removed the survey stakes placed by the City.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 30.
31. Million, Fox-Million, and Richardson have entered onto Parcel II and have allowed
others to enter onto Parcel II.
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
7 of 12
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 31.
32. At no point has the City authorized Million, Fox-Million, or Richardson to enter onto
Parcel II or to allow others onto Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 32.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Quiet Title and Declaratory Judgment)
33. The City incorporates all other preceding allegations here.
ANSWER: Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding responses here.
34. Under C.R.C.P. 57 and 105, the Court has the authority to completely adjudicate the rights
of all parties with respect to real estate.
ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 34.
35. The City Property, which includes Parcel II, has been continuously owned by a government
entity since 1942, first by the State Board of Agriculture, which was succeeded by CSU,
and later by CSURF and then the City.
ANSWER: The ownership of the real property at issue in this action is in dispute and
Defendants therefore deny the allegations in paragraph 35.
36. Defendant Million has no claim or interest in or to Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 36.
37. Defendant Fox-Million has no claim or interest in or to Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 37.
38. Defendant Million Agricultural has no claim or interest in or to Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 38.
39. Defendant Richardson has no claim or interest in or to Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 39.
40. Defendant PVLC has no claim or interest in or to Parcel II.
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
8 of 12
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 40 due to a lack of knowledge and
information. In the PVLCC Answer, PVLCC stated the following: “Defendant PVLCC
denies the allegations in paragraph 40. PVLCC has an easement for its canal and the rights
to operate, maintain, and repair. The PVLCC ditch is in this area and the company has the
right to operate, maintain and repair the ditch. The precise location of these easements needs
to be determined.”
41. All claims of interest in or to Parcel II by Defendants are without legal and factual support.
Neither Defendants nor any of Defendants’ predecessors -in-title hold any interest in Parcel
II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 41.
42. Alternately, if the Court determines that any Defendant may have held an interest in
Parcel II, then the City and its predecessors-in-title have, for a period of more than eighteen
years prior to commencement of this action, had sole occupation and use of Parcel II. The
occupation and use by the City and the City’s predecessors -in-title of Parcel II has been
exclusive, continuous, under claim of right, open, and notorious and adverse to any and all
other possible owners, including the Defendants, by making all ordinary uses of Parcel II
as an owner. The City and the City’s predecessors-in-title have a good faith basis to believe
that they own Parcel II in fee simple.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 42.
43. Some or all of the Defendants may claim some right, title, or interest in and to Parcel II
adverse to the City’s interest. The claims of any Defendant to the contrary of the City’s
rights are without foundation or right.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 43.
44. Any interest claimed by the Defendants in Parcel II is inferior to the interests of the City.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 44.
45. Therefore, the City is entitled to a declaratory judgment and decree of quiet title
determining that the City is the sole owner of Parcel II and that the Defendants have no
interest in Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 45.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass—against Million, Fox-Million, and Richardson)
46. The City incorporates all preceding allegations here.
ANSWER: Defendants incorporate by reference all preceding responses herein.
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
9 of 12
47. The City owns and has been in lawful possession of Parcel II since November 2007.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 47.
48. Million, Fox-Million, and Richardson intentionally entered onto Parcel II while the City
owned Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 48.
49. Million, Fox-Million, and Richardson intentionally caused other individuals to enter onto
Parcel II by permitting others to access Parcel II while wrongfully holding themselves out
as owners or rightful possessors of Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 49.
50. Million, Fox-Million, and Richardson, through themselves and the individuals they
caused to enter onto Parcel II, have damaged the City by, including but not limite d to,
removing survey stakes placed by the City and removing or modifying fences on Parcel II.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 50.
51. Therefore, Million, Fox-Million, and Richardson are liable to the City for damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.
ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 51.
DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert some or all of the claims asserted in this action.
3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitation.
4. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by Plaintiff’s acquiescence.
5. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by Plaintiff’s abandonment.
6. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred under the doctrine of adverse possession.
7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel.
8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of frauds and/or
parole evidence.
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
10 of 12
9. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred under the doctrine of laches.
10. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in that a continuous and existing fence line demarks the
boundaries of Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ properties.
COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, Crystal J. McDonough and Scott
Slawson of the law office of McDonough Law LLC, hereby state and allege the following as their
counterclaims against Plaintiff City of Fort Collins (“Plaintiff”):
1. This Court has jurisdiction and the venue is proper as stated in Plaintiff’s complaint and in
Defendants Answer.
2. Plaintiff’s herein do not own the property in dispute. Specifically, the property at issue, a
small sliver of land between Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s adjoining properties, has at all
relevant times been lawfully owned, possessed, and openly occupied by Defendants and/or
their predecessors in interest. The property lies in a correction area as a result of the
curvature of the earth. A fence line, believed to have been in place for over 100 years,
demarks the property boundaries.
3. Accordingly, an action for quiet title and declaratory judgment is properly before this Court
to determine the competing claims of the parties to the property at issue.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass)
4. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-3 as if fully set forth herein.
5. Despite having no lawful claim to the property at issue, Plaintiff through its employees,
contractors, and/or agents, has unlawfully entered and encroached upon the property
without invitation or permission and without any legitimate governmental purpose.
6. Plaintiff has caused damages to the property through Plaintiff’s trespasses, including but
not limited to unlawfully staking the property and otherwise causing Defendants’ loss of
use of that property.
7. Therefore, Plaintiff is liable to Defendants for damages in an amount subject to proof.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for the relief as follows:
1. For declaratory relief and a decree for quiet title relating to the property at issue herein;
2. For a determination that Plaintiff has no ownership interest or claim in the disputed
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
11 of 12
property;
3. For a determination that lawful ownership in fee simple and possession belongs to the
appropriate Defendant herein;
4. For judgment against Plaintiff on its trespass claim;
5. For judgment in favor of Defendants on their trespass claim including an award of
damages;
6. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest as permissible; and
7. For other relief as the Court deems proper.
Respectfully submitted,
MCDONOUGH LAW LLC
Original signature on file at the offices of McDonough Law
LLC pursuant to C.R.C.P. 121 Sec. 1-26
s/ Scott Slawson
Scott Slawson, #46001
1635 Foxtrail Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
P: (970) 776-3311
F: (877) 800-5583
scott@mcdonoughlawllc.com
Attorney for Defendants Aaron Million aka Aaron P.
Million, Jordan Fox-Million, Million Agricultural
Investments, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, and
Arlo Richardson aka Arlo Lee Richardson
Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim
12 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 30th day of September 2021, a true and correct
copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANTS AARON
MILLION, JORDAN FOX-MILLION, MILLION AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENTS,
LTD., AND ARLO RICHARDSON was filed and served via the Colorado Courts E-filing
System upon the following parties of record:
Peter J. Dauster
Daniel M. St. John II
Johnson Muffly & Dauster, PC
323 South College Avenue, Suite 1
Fort Collins, CO 80524
pdauster@nocolawgroup.com
dstjohn@nocolawgroup.com
The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Ditch Company
160 W. Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Ingrid E. Decker
Fort Collins City Attorney’s Office
300 W. LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
idecker@fcgov.com
s/ Lorelei A. Knott
Paralegal, McDonough Law LLC
lorelei@mcdonoughlawllc.com