Inv. Family Ltd. P'ship v. City of Littleton

Citations

• 2019 COA 127

Syllabus

The City of Littleton (the City) approved a planned development plan amendment that would allow for assisted living, memory care, and accessory uses commonly associated with assisted living and memory care facilities. Burger Investments Family Limited Partnership (Burger) owns property adjacent to the subject parcel and filed a complaint in district court under CRCP 106(a)(4) to review the City Council's decision, alleging that the decision violated the City's code. The City moved to dismiss Burger's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that pursuant to section 58 of the City's charter, Littleton municipal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to address the City Council's decision. The court granted the motion. On appeal, Burger argued that the district court erred in interpreting the City's charter as vesting the municipal court with exclusive original jurisdiction over Burger's appeal of the City Council's decision. A municipal court may only exercise the jurisdiction expressly granted to it in a charter or ordinance. As a home rule municipality, the City has the authority to vest its municipal court with jurisdiction over matters of local and municipal concern. Though Burger's action raises issues of local or municipal concern, the City Council's and voters' intent was to limit the jurisdiction of the Littleton municipal courts to criminal matters. Thus, the district court erred in concluding that the municipal court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Burger's complaint and in dismissing the complaint. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for the court to reinstate Burger's complaint.