Town of Vail v. Village Inn Plaza

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

SUMMARY
August 12, 2021

2021COA108

No. 20CA1179, Town of Vail v. Village Inn Plaza – Phase V
Condominium Association — Real Property — Common Interest
Communities — Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act —
Applicability of Local Ordinances, Regulations, and Building
Codes

A division of the court of appeals considers whether the anti-

discrimination provision of the Colorado Common Interest

Ownership Act (CCIOA), section 38-33.3-106, C.R.S. 2020,

invalidates a section within a Town of Vail ordinance that pre-dates

the CCIOA’s enactment. The division holds that it does.

Specifically, it finds that (1) because the present-day enforcement of

the ordinance is an “event[] and circumstance[] occurring on or

after July 1, 1992,” § 38-33.3-117(1), C.R.S. 2020, the CCIOA and

its anti-discrimination provision retroactively apply; (2) section

11(6) of the Town’s ordinance violates the CCIOA’s anti-
discrimination provision because it facially discriminates against

condominiums; and (3) the CCIOA preempts the Town’s ordinance.

Based on this holding, the division also finds that the defendant

condominium association is entitled to attorney fees.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2021COA108

Court of Appeals No. 20CA1179
Eagle County District Court No. 14CV30259
Honorable Reed W. Owens, Judge

Town of Vail, a Colorado home rule municipality,

Appellant,

v.

Village Inn Plaza-Phase V Condominium Association, a Colorado non-profit
corporation; Vail Village Inn, Inc., a Colorado corporation; Griffin Development
LLC, a Texas limited liability company; Karin Wagner, as Trustee for the Karin
Wagner Revocable Inter Vivos Trust; Meadow Drive Ventures Inc., a Colorado
Corporation; Potamus Bean LLC, a Texas limited liability company; Staufer
Commercial LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; VVI, LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company; Richard L. Liebhaber,

Appellees.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division II
Opinion by JUDGE DAVIDSON*
Román and Lipinsky, JJ., concur

Announced August 12, 2021

Hoffman, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C., Kendra L. Carberry, Denver,
Colorado; Hoffman, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C., J. Matthew Mire, Vail,
Colorado, for Appellant

Miletich, P.C., Walter N. Houghtaling, Denver, Colorado; Frederick G. Aldrich
LLC, Frederick G. Aldrich, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Appellee Village Inn
Plaza-Phase V Condominium Association

Porterfield Oliver LLC, Wendell Porterfield, Vail, Colorado, for Appellees Staufer
Commercial LLC and Vail Village Inn, Inc.
Hale Law LLC, Allan Hale, Steamboat Springs, Colorado, for Appellees Griffin
Development LLC, Karin Wagner, Meadow Drive Ventures Inc., Potamus Bean
LLC, Richard L. Liebhaber; and VVI, LLC

Altitude Community Law, P.C., William Short, Azra Taslimi, Lakewood,
Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Community Associations Institute

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art.
VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2020.
¶1 The anti-discrimination provision of the Colorado Common

Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), section 38-33.3-106, C.R.S. 2020,

states that no ordinance may “impose any requirement upon a

condominium or cooperative which it would not impose upon a

physically identical development under a different form of

ownership.” At issue in this appeal is whether a portion of an

ordinance enacted by the Town of Vail (Town) violates this

provision. In a declaratory order entered on summary judgment in

favor of the Village Inn Plaza-Phase V Condominium Association

(the Association), the district court said it did, and we agree.

Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Background

A. The Town’s Ordinance, its Restrictions, and the Association’s
Amended Rules

¶2 The Town Code of Vail (Town Code) and its zoning regulations

allow the City Council to establish Special Development Districts

through an ordinance. Town Code § 12-9A-4(D). In 1976, the Town

enacted an ordinance establishing the Village Inn Plaza

development as Special Development District No. 6 (SDD no. 6). In

1987, the Town enacted an ordinance modifying the 1976

1
ordinance to allow for the development of Phase V of the Village Inn

Plaza development.

¶3 The 1987 ordinance includes several conditions of approval for

developers building within SDD no. 6. The relevant condition of

approval here is section 11(6), which states as follows:

Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V
which would be condominiumized shall be as
outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Vail
Municipal Code and any amendments thereto.

Section 17.26.075, recodified as section 13-7-8 of the Town Code,

imposes several restrictions on units converted to condominiums

prior to February 7, 1995. Town Code § 13-7-8(A).1 The

restrictions require that condominium units “remain in the short

term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations

available to the general public,” Town Code § 13-7-8(B); limit an

owner’s personal use of their unit during the “high season,” Town

Code § 13-7-8(B)(1); and impose fines for violations, Town Code

1 The Town Code defines a “condominium conversion” as the use of
any property as a condominium project regardless of the present or
prior use of the property. Town Code § 13-7-2.

2
§ 13-7-8(B)(2). Although the 1987 ordinance has been amended,

the restrictions remain in the Town Code.

¶4 In 1988, the Association, seeking to establish a condominium

project within Phase V, recorded a condominium declaration. The

declaration adopted the restrictions for condominiums outlined in

the 1987 ordinance and section 13-7-8 of the Town Code as section

21(i) of the declaration. In 2013, the Association adopted Policies,

Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines. In 2013 and 2014, the

Association amended its rules to state that the Association would

no longer enforce section 21(i) of its original condominium

declaration (i.e., the restrictions from the 1987 ordinance and

section 13-7-8 of the Town Code).

B. Procedural History

¶5 In 2014, Staufer Commercial, LLC, a commercial owner in

Phase V, sought a declaratory judgment that the Association’s

amended rules announcing its refusal to enforce section 21(i) violate

the Association’s condominium declaration. The Town joined as an

indispensable party and filed a cross-claim seeking a declaratory

judgment that section 21(i) of the amended rules violates the 1987

ordinance and section 13-7-8 of the Town Code.

3
¶6 In January 2015, the Town amended its cross-claim to allege

that section 21(i) specifically violates section 11(6) of the 1987

ordinance and section 13-7-8 of the Town Code (i.e., the restrictions

on condominiums). Subsequently, the Association filed a motion

for partial summary judgment pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56, seeking

dismissal of the Town’s cross-claim on the grounds that section

11(6) of the ordinance violates the anti-discrimination clause of the

CCIOA. The Town asserted in response that the CCIOA does not

apply retroactively to the 1987 ordinance and that, even if it does,

the Association presented no evidence to show discrimination

against the condominium form of ownership.

¶7 In June 2018, the district court granted the Association’s

motion for partial summary judgment on the amended cross-claim

based on section 11(6) of the ordinance. It found that (1) although

the CCIOA applies generally to communities created after July 1,

1992, it applies here because the Town’s enforcement of the 1987

ordinance constituted an “event[] and circumstance[]” that permits

retroactive application of the CCIOA, § 38-33.3-117(1), C.R.S. 2020;

and (2) the 1987 ordinance is discriminatory as a matter of law

4
because “the language of Vail’s ordinance applies only to

condominiums.”

¶8 The Town filed an appeal with this court, but, because the

June 2018 order did not resolve the Town’s second amended cross-

claim — a claim for penalties against the Association and

residential owner defendant Richard L. Liebhaber — we dismissed it

without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On remand, the district

court granted a motion to dismiss the Town’s second amended

cross-claim on the same grounds as those set forth in its June 2018

order. The court then issued a C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification, and we

are satisfied that we now have jurisdiction to consider the Town’s

appeal of the district court’s declaratory judgment order dismissing

the second cross-claim.

¶9 On appeal, the Town argues that the district court’s

determination that the restriction provision of section 11(6) of the

1987 ordinance violates the anti-discrimination provision of the

CCIOA was in error because the CCIOA does not retroactively apply

to the 1987 ordinance and because the 1987 ordinance is not

facially discriminatory. It further argues that, in any event, the

5
CCIOA is inapplicable because it is preempted by section 11(6) as a

matter of purely local concern.

II. Whether the Anti-Discrimination Provision of the CCIOA
Retroactively Applies to Section 11(6) of the 1987 Ordinance

¶ 10 Phase V of the development was created in 1988, four years

before the CCIOA’s effective date. As a threshold matter, the Town

contends that section 11(6) of the 1987 ordinance cannot violate the

CCIOA because the statute does not apply retroactively to the 1987

ordinance. We disagree.

A. Legal Principles

¶ 11 Whether the CCIOA applies in this instance is a question of

statutory interpretation. We review questions of statutory

interpretation de novo. Hunsaker v. People, 2015 CO 46, ¶ 11.

When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain and

give effect to the General Assembly’s purpose and intent in enacting

it. People v. Cooper, 27 P.3d 348, 354 (Colo. 2001); People v. Sims,

2019 COA 66, ¶ 33. In doing so, we look first to the statute’s plain

language, and if that language is clear, we enforce the statute as

written and “do not need to resort to other rules of statutory

construction.” Nowak v. Suthers, 2014 CO 14, ¶ 20.

6
B. Analysis

¶ 12 The CCIOA applies to common interest communities “created”

in Colorado after the CCIOA’s effective date of July 1, 1992. § 38-

33.3-115, C.R.S. 2020. Importantly, however, while the statute

generally does not apply to communities created before its effective

date, § 38-33.3-117(3); see also DA Mountain Rentals, LLC v. Lodge

at Lionshead Phase III Condo. Ass’n, 2016 COA 141, ¶ 28, it

provides for two exceptions. The first allows associations for pre-

existing communities to elect to be governed by the CCIOA in its

entirety. § 38-33.3-118, C.R.S. 2020; DA Mountain Rentals, ¶ 28.

That exception is not relevant here because the Association did not

elect to do so.

¶ 13 The second exception, however, provides that, for certain

specified statutory provisions, pre-existing communities are subject

to the CCIOA for “events and circumstances occurring on or after

July 1, 1992.” § 38-33.3-117(1); see Giguere v. SJS Fam. Enters.,

Ltd., 155 P.3d 462, 469 (Colo. App. 2006) (sections of the CCIOA

made applicable to pre-existing common interest communities

apply retroactively pursuant to section 38-33.3-117). Here, the

parties do not dispute that section 38-33.3-106, the anti-

7
discrimination provision of the CCIOA, is one of the provisions

covered by section 38-33.3-117(1) for “events and circumstances

occurring on or after July 1, 1992.” But they disagree whether

there has been an “event[] and circumstance[]” occurring after July

1, 1992, triggering section 38-33.3-117(1).

¶ 14 In its order, the district court concluded that “the present-day

effect of this ordinance is, of necessity, an ‘event[] and

circumstance[] occurring on or after July 1, 1992.” We agree.

¶ 15 “Event” means “something that happens,” or “a noteworthy

happening.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://perma.cc/4VTG-

HNPQ. “Circumstance” means “a condition, fact, or event

accompanying, conditioning, or determining another.” Merriam-

Webster Dictionary, https://perma.cc/357U-LD8V. Certainly, the

Town’s current attempt to enforce section 11(6) of the 1987

ordinance by bringing cross-claims against the Association and the

residential owners is something that is happening and an event

with the potential to determine future events. The plain meaning of

an “event and circumstance,” therefore, unambiguously includes

the Town’s current actions in seeking to enforce the 1987

ordinance. As the district court reasoned, “the relevant provisions

8
of the CCIOA are applicable to common-interest entities created

before 1992, and those relevant provisions, as a matter of plain

language, apply to current-day occurrences, with such occurrences

including the present-day effect of municipal ordinances.” See DA

Mountain Rentals, ¶ 29 (association exercising its power to amend

its declaration triggered retroactive application of the CCIOA);

Pagosa Lakes Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Caywood, 973 P.2d 698, 701

(Colo. App. 1998) (association exercising its power to adopt and

amend bylaws, rules, and regulations triggered retroactive

application of the CCIOA); Giguere, 155 P.3d at 467 (retroactive

application of the CCIOA was imposed after association’s

declaration was amended); RiverPointe Homeowners Ass’n v.

Mallory, 656 S.E.2d 659, 660-61 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (association’s

attempt to impose fines and enforce the fines by foreclosure

constituted an event and circumstance triggering application of the

North Carolina Planned Community Act); Holloway v. Tanasi Shores

Owners Ass’n, No. M2018-00932-COA-R3-CV, 2019 WL 1988502,

at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 6, 2019) (association policy change

constituted an event and circumstance triggering retroactive

application of the Tennessee Condominium Act).

9
¶ 16 Contrary to the Town’s assertion, deeming enforcement of a

pre-existing ordinance an “event and circumstance” does not lead,

in the Town’s words, to the “absurd result” that it cannot enforce

any pre-existing ordinance, including zoning ordinances, against a

common interest community.

¶ 17 First, we are not convinced that section 11(6) of the ordinance

and section 13-7-8 of the Town Code are zoning ordinances.2

¶ 18 In any event, and more importantly, the legislature has

specified that, if and when events and circumstances warrant, only

certain parts of the CCIOA could be applied retroactively; that is,

application of the CCIOA to pre-existing common interest

communities does not render entire ordinances invalid — just the

parts that violate prohibitions within section 38-33.3-117. See DA

Mountain Rentals, ¶ 28; Giguere, 155 P.3d at 469. Indeed, the

court’s declaratory judgment that section 38-33.3-106(2) of the

CCIOA invalidates as discriminatory section 11(6) of the ordinance

2 Although the Town asserted in its briefs, and again at oral
argument, that it treats subdivision regulations the same as zoning
regulations, it offered no explanation or supporting authority as to
why.

10
— regardless of whether it is a subdivision or zoning regulation —

does not affect the remainder of the ordinance.

¶ 19 Accordingly, we agree with the district court and conclude that

the Town’s actions in attempting to enforce section 11(6) of the

1987 ordinance are “events and circumstances” triggering

application of the CCIOA’s anti-discrimination clause under section

38-33.3-106(2) and further conclude, therefore, that this provision

of the CCIOA applies retroactively in this instance.3

III. Whether the Ordinance is Facially Discriminatory

¶ 20 Alternatively, the Town contends that even if the CCIOA anti-

discrimination clause applies, the district court erred by granting

3 The Town argued for the first time in a motion for reconsideration
filed in the district court that the court erred by failing to consider
the legislative history of the Uniform Act on which the CCIOA was
based. The Association counters that the argument wasn’t properly
raised and, even if it was, the legislative history supports the court’s
statutory interpretation. We need not reach those issues, however.
Any review of legislative history is unnecessary and inappropriate
because we have determined that the statutory language is plain
and the result of enforcing the plain language is not absurd. See,
e.g., Smith v. Exec. Custom Homes, Inc., 230 P.3d 1186, 1190 (Colo.
2010) (“The legislative history . . . cannot render the plain and
unambiguous language of [a statutory provision] ambiguous.”).

11
summary judgment for the Association on the grounds that the

1987 ordinance violates this provision as a matter of law.

A. Legal Principles

¶ 21 Under C.R.C.P. 56, summary judgment is proper when the

pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions show that there is

no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ. Serv. Comm’n v.

Pinder, 812 P.2d 645, 649 (Colo. 1991). The burden of establishing

the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact is on the

moving party. C.R.C.P. 56; Cont’l Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d

708 (Colo. 1987). Once the moving party clears this initial

evidentiary hurdle, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to

present evidence showing a triable issue of fact. Griswold v. Nat’l

Fed’n of Indep. Bus., 2019 CO 79, ¶ 24. If the nonmoving party

cannot produce such evidence, the moving party is entitled to

summary judgment. Cont’l Air Lines, 731 P.2d at 713.

¶ 22 We review the court’s decision granting summary judgment de

novo. Credit Serv. Co. v. Dauwe, 134 P.3d 444, 445 (Colo. App.

2005).

12
¶ 23 The same rules of construction apply in interpreting

ordinances as apply in interpreting statutes. City of Colorado

Springs v. Securcare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244, 1248 (Colo.

2000). Therefore, in construing an ordinance, we look first to its

plain language, and if we can give effect to the ordinary meaning of

the words used by the legislative body, we construe it as written.

Id. at 1249.

¶ 24 We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of the

ordinance. Asphalt Specialties, Co. v. City of Commerce City, 218

P.3d 741, 745 (Colo. App. 2009).

B. Analysis

¶ 25 As set forth above, the anti-discrimination provision of the

CCIOA states that

no . . . ordinance . . . may . . . impose any
requirement upon a condominium or
cooperative which it would not impose upon a
physically identical development under a
different form of ownership.

§ 33-33.3-106(2) (emphasis added). That is, when an ordinance

imposes a restriction based on a development being a

condominium, the ordinance violates the CCIOA’s anti-

discrimination clause.

13
¶ 26 And, as also set forth above, section 11(6) of the Town’s 1987

ordinance states:

Restrictions on any units in Phases IV or V
which would be condominiumized shall be as
outlined in Section 17.26.075 of the Vail
Municipal Code and any amendments thereto.

(Emphasis added). By its plain terms, section 11(6) anticipates two

distinct forms of ownership — condominium ownership and non-

condominium ownership — and imposes restrictions on only the

condominium form of ownership.

¶ 27 Also in plain terms, section 11(6) further states that the

restrictions as described in section 17.26.075 of the Town Code

(now section 13-7-8), which imposes restrictions on units converted

from different types of ownership to condominiums prior to

February 7, 1995, shall apply to units “which would be

condominiumized.” Those restrictions, as described in section 13-

7-8, require that the condominium units “remain in the short term

rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to

the general public,” restrict an owner’s personal use of their unit

during the “high season,” and impose fines for violations. Critically,

these restrictions do not apply to other forms of ownership.

14
¶ 28 Because section 11(6) of the ordinance singles out

condominiums (and section 13-7-8 of the Town Code does so as

well), it is facially apparent that section 11(6) discriminates against

the condominium form of ownership in violation of the CCIOA’s

anti-discrimination provision as a matter of law. Section 11(6)

imposes the restrictions described in section 17.26.075, now

section 13-7-8 of the Town Code, on Phase V units only if the units

would be condominiumized. Conversely, in plain language, if the

units are not condominiumized, then the restrictions do not apply.

¶ 29 Similarly, we see no merit in the Town’s argument that the

court erred by failing to require evidence from the Association to

demonstrate discrimination — for example, that the developer

sought to construct Phase V without any condominiums, or that the

Town would not have imposed the residency restriction for the

development of physically identical non-condominium dwellings, or

that other buildings exist that are identical to Phase V and those

buildings don’t contain condominiums, or that such buildings were

not subject to the restrictions as a condition of approval.

¶ 30 What the Town or the developer would do under other

circumstances is immaterial. It simply does not matter whether

15
Phase V currently has non-condominiums or whether there are

plans to have non-condominiums. Regardless of what units exist or

are ultimately developed, the plain language of the ordinance

applies the restrictions only to condominiums and, conversely,

excludes from the restrictions non-condominiums. As the district

court stated: “The language of Vail’s ordinance applies only to

condominiums. The ordinance is, on its face, discriminatory. This

is not a matter of proof — it is a matter of law.” See Town of

Westerly v. Waldo, 524 A.2d 1117, 1119 (R.I. 1987) (identifying

condominium ownership as a “use” in the zoning regulations would

have violated a state statute prohibiting discrimination against

condominiums); Multi-Fam. Council of Se. Pa. v. City of Philadelphia,

3 Pa. D. & C.4th 1, 2 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1989) (city tax that singled out

condominiums violated Pennsylvania’s Uniform Condominium Act

and its prohibition on discrimination against condominiums).

IV. Whether the CCIOA Cannot Apply Because Vail is a Home-
Rule Municipality

¶ 31 The Town also argues that the CCIOA cannot invalidate the

ordinance because enforcement of the ordinance’s regulations is a

16
matter of purely local concern reserved for home-rule

municipalities. Again, we disagree.

A. Legal Background

¶ 32 Article XX, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution grants

municipalities “home-rule” authority to create or amend charters to

govern local and municipal matters. The effect of this

constitutional provision is that on issues of local concern, a home-

rule city’s law can preempt conflicting state legislation; and on

matters of statewide concern, state legislation can preempt a home-

rule city’s conflicting law. See City of Northglenn v. Ibarra, 62 P.3d

151, 155 (Colo. 2003).

¶ 33 To determine whether a home-rule city or the state has

plenary authority for purposes of article XX, section 6, we have

recognized that regulatory matters fall into three broad categories:

(1) matters of local concern; (2) matters of statewide concern; and

(3) matters of mixed state and local concern. Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 155

(citing City of Commerce City v. State, 40 P.3d 1273, 1279 (Colo.

2002)). In matters of local concern, both the state and home-rule

city may legislate. Id. If the home-rule city’s regulation conflicts

with the state statute, the home-rule enactment controls. Webb v.

17
City of Black Hawk, 2013 CO 9, ¶¶ 16-17 (citing City & Cnty. of

Denver v. Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d 748, 754 (Colo. 2001)). In matters

of statewide concern, the state legislature exercises plenary

authority, and home-rule cities may regulate only if the constitution

or a statute authorizes such legislation. Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 155. In

matters involving mixed state and local concern, local enactments

and state statutes may coexist if there is no conflict. Id. In the

event of a conflict, however, the state statute supersedes the local

regulation. Webb, ¶ 18 (citing City & Cnty. of Denver v. State, 788

P.2d 764, 767 (Colo. 1990)).

¶ 34 To determine whether a matter is local, statewide, or mixed,

we consider several factors, including (1) the need for statewide

uniformity of regulation; (2) the extra-territorial impact of local

regulation; (3) whether the matter has traditionally been regulated

at the state or local level; and (4) whether the Colorado Constitution

specifically commits the matter to state or local regulation. Town of

Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 37 (Colo.

2000). We have also considered legislative declarations as to

whether a matter is of statewide concern. Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 156

(first citing City of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1280; and then citing

18
Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37). When considering these factors, we weigh

the respective interests of the locality and the state in regulating a

particular matter. Id. At times, we may conclude that a matter is

of mixed or statewide concern even though there exists a relatively

smaller, local interest. See id. Thus, even if the locality may have

an interest in regulating a matter to the exclusion of the state under

its home-rule powers, such an interest may be insufficient to find

that the matter is purely local. Id.

B. Analysis

¶ 35 Applying the four factors, we conclude that the enforcement or

non-enforcement of the Town’s 1987 ordinance is a matter of mixed

local and state concern and that, because the ordinance conflicts

with the CCIOA, the CCIOA preempts it.

1. The Regulation of Common Interest Communities is a Matter
of Mixed Concern

¶ 36 We first conclude that the regulation of common interest

communities is a matter of mixed concern, addressing each factor

in turn.

19
a. Uniformity

¶ 37 When the General Assembly enacted the CCIOA, it intended to

create a “clear, comprehensive, and uniform framework for the

creation and operation of common interest communities.” § 38-

33.3-102(1)(a), C.R.S. 2020 (emphasis added) (CCIOA legislative

declaration). In doing so, the legislature declared “[t]hat it is the

policy of this state to give developers flexible development rights

with specific obligations within a uniform structure of development of

a common interest community that extends through the transition to

owner control.” § 38-33.3-102(1)(c) (emphasis added). As well,

section 38-33.3-106, the anti-discrimination clause, is titled

“Applicability of local ordinances, regulations, and building codes.”

The section’s goal is clearly to regulate and limit discriminatory

local ordinances. Because the legislature has indicated a clear

interest in regulating discriminatory local ordinances and an

interest in uniformity under the CCIOA generally, we find that the

CCIOA sets forth a clear need for the uniform regulation of common

interest communities. See City of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1280

(we may look at legislative declarations to determine the uniformity

element); Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 160 (“Although uniformity in itself is no

20
virtue, we have found statewide uniformity necessary when it

achieves and maintains specific state goals.”) (citations omitted).

b. Extra-Territorial Impact

¶ 38 The extent of the extra-territorial impact of the regulation of

common interest communities is informed in part by our supreme

court’s decision in Telluride, 3 P.3d 30. There, the Town of Telluride

sought to enforce an ordinance that imposed an “affordable

housing” requirement. The court held, first, that the ordinance was

at its core a rent control ordinance and, second, that state

regulations prohibiting rent control preempted the ordinance

because rent control was a matter of mixed local and statewide

concern. In coming to that conclusion, the court noted the extra-

territorial impact of the ordinance on the state’s objectives and

other communities:

Managing population and development growth
is among the most pressing problems currently
facing communities throughout the state.
Restricting the operation of the free market with
respect to housing in one area may well cause
housing investment and population to migrate to
other communities already facing their own
growth problems. Although such a ripple effect
may well be minimal in Telluride because of its
geographic isolation, it is absolutely true that
the growth of other mountain resort

21
communities has impacted neighboring
communities greatly. The fact that the
Telluride ordinance is an affirmative effort to
mitigate that impact does not change the fact
that the growth of the one community is tied to
the growth of the next, thereby buttressing the
need for a regional or even statewide approach.

Id. at 39 (emphasis added).

¶ 39 Like the rent control ordinance in Telluride, the ordinance here

restricts the operation of the free housing market in a way that

could have an extra-territorial ripple effect. Restrictions on the

condominium form of ownership — especially those requiring

owners to place their units on a short-term rental market — could

cause housing investment and populations to migrate to

communities without such restrictions.

c. Tradition

¶ 40 Although the regulation of housing is sometimes left to local

bodies, and municipalities certainly have an interest in regulating

housing, we aren’t convinced that this local interest outweighs the

state interest in regulating common interest communities so much

so that we can classify regulating condominiums as a purely local

matter. See Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 162. For one thing, we aren’t aware

of any case saying that the regulation of common interest

22
communities is traditionally a matter of purely local concern. True,

as the Town points out, we have typically categorized zoning-related

matters as local for purposes of article XX, section 6. See Securcare

Self Storage, 10 P.3d at 1247. However, there is also a clear

statewide interest in regulating common interest communities. As

explained, the legislature declared such a statewide interest, and

there is an interest in ensuring that local ordinances don’t have a

strong extra-territorial impact on the housing market. Thus,

although there is some local interest in regulating housing, to

designate the regulation of common interest communities as

traditionally a matter of purely local concern “fails to capture the

sweep of this ordinance’s impact upon state” activity in regulating

common interest communities. See Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 162

(classifying a matter as traditionally one of purely local concern

didn’t capture the sweep of the ordinance’s impact on state

interests).

d. The Constitution

¶ 41 The constitution does not assign the issue of occupancy

restrictions, the regulation of common interest communities and

23
condominiums, or economic regulation generally either to the state

or to localities. See Colo. Const. art. XX, § 6.

e. Considering These Factors, the Matter is one of Mixed State
and Local Concern

¶ 42 Although we acknowledge that there is a local interest in

regulating common interest communities, that interest is

insufficient to make this matter purely local since there are also

strong statewide interests in maintaining the uniform regulation of

common interest communities and avoiding the potential for an

extra-territorial ripple effect. See Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 156 (citing City

of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1280) (even where there is a local

concern, the matter can still be classified as a matter of statewide

concern). Thus, because the regulation of common interest

communities implicates both state and local interests, we find that

the matter is one of mixed state and local concern. See Telluride, 3

P.3d at 37 (similarly classifying rent control regulation as mixed).

2. Because the Ordinance Conflicts with the CCIOA, the CCIOA
Preempts it

¶ 43 Having determined that this matter is one of mixed state and

local concern, we next turn to whether there is a conflict between

the ordinance and the CCIOA.

24
¶ 44 The CCIOA and an ordinance can coexist if there is no conflict

between them. See Ibarra, 62 P.3d at 155. In the event of a

conflict, however, the CCIOA supersedes the ordinance. Webb,

¶ 16.

¶ 45 Here, there is a direct conflict between the ordinance and the

CCIOA. The ordinance discriminates against the condominium

form of ownership, which is prohibited by the CCIOA. Thus, the

CCIOA preempts the Town’s ordinance.

¶ 46 Because the CCIOA preempts the ordinance, the Town’s

argument that the CCIOA cannot apply because it is a home-rule

municipality fails.

V. Attorney Fees on Appeal

¶ 47 The Association seeks recovery of legal fees and costs incurred

in defending this appeal and the prior appeal that was dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 48 Section 38-33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.S. 2020, states that “[i]n any

civil action to enforce or defend the provisions of this article or of

the declaration, bylaws, articles, or rules and regulations, the court

shall award reasonable attorney fees, costs, and costs of collection

to the prevailing party.” The provision entitles the prevailing party

25
to attorney fees and costs for each claim and for “that aspect of [the]

case.” Giguere, 155 P.3d at 472 (citation omitted). Here, the

Association was the prevailing party and thus is entitled to attorney

fees encompassing litigation as it relates to these claims, including

this appeal and the previous appeal.4

¶ 49 However, because the trial court is in a better position to

determine the amount of reasonable fees incurred by the

Association on appeal, we exercise our discretion to remand the

case for further proceedings on that issue. See C.A.R. 39.1.

VI. Conclusion

¶ 50 The judgment is affirmed, and the case is remanded with

directions.

4 We note the Town’s unsupported assertion that, because it
explicitly stated in its cross-claim that the cross-claim “was not
being brought under [the] CCIOA,” the CCIOA doesn’t apply to this
case and consequently cannot provide support for an award of
attorney fees. However, we agree with the Association that the mere
fact that the Town isn’t asserting a claim under the CCIOA doesn’t
preclude its applicability, including the provisions relating to
attorney fees. See § 38-33.3-123(1)(c), C.R.S. 2020. Indeed, the
Town doesn’t direct us to any legal authority supporting its
argument. See C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B); People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551,
555 (Colo. App. 2003) (declining to address “a bald legal
proposition” not developed with supporting argument).

26
JUDGE ROMÁN and JUDGE LIPINSKY concur.

27