Jennings v. Bradfield

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Blehm

    983 P.2d 779 (Colo. 1999)   Cited 76 times
    Holding proper procedure is remand to determine whether waiver was nonetheless knowing, voluntary, and intelligent after trial court's advisement failsCurtis

    Thus, "[a]lthough we recognize that there is respectable authority to the contrary, we prefer not to depart from the doctrine of stare decisis" as to the rule laid down by Curtis a decade and a half ago. Jennings v. Bradfield, 169 Colo. 146, 147-48, 454 P.2d 81, 81-82 (1969) (citations omitted). 3.

  2. Kneedler v. League Wide

    294 Mont. 101 (Mont. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    The District Court concluded that the fact that each interest had been assessed separately was sufficient to distinguish this case from earlier cases in which we held that where property is held in cotenancy, notice of Issuance of a tax deed must be served upon every individual co-owner. See Long v. Dillon (1984), 208 Mont. 490, 679 P.2d 772; Kerr v. Small (1941), 112 Mont. 490, 117 P.2d 271; Fariss v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. (D. Mont. 1940), 31 F. Supp. 571. As support for its conclusion that notice to cotenants is not required where each tenant's interest has been taxed separately, the District Court relied upon the rationale adopted by the courts of Colorado and Kansas in Jennings v. Bradfield (Colo. 1969), 454 P.2d 81, 82, and Jesberg v. Klinger (Kan. 1961), 358 P.2d 770, 776. ¶ 12.

  3. SMITH v. DISTRICT COURT, FOURTH JUD

    907 P.2d 611 (Colo. 1995)   Cited 8 times

    The doctrine of stare decisis has long been established in the jurisprudence of this state, Creacy v. Industrial Comm'n, 148 Colo. 429, 433, 366 P.2d 384, 386 (1961), and should be adhered to in the absence of sound reason for rejecting it. People v. Quimby, 152 Colo. 231, 235, 381 P.2d 275, 277 (1963); see also Huydts v. Dixon, 199 Colo. 260, 606 P.2d 1303 (1980); Jennings v. Bradfield, 169 Colo. 146, 454 P.2d 81 (1969). Considerations of uniformity, certainty, and stability, which are the objectives of the stare decisis doctrine, Kern v. Gebhardt, 746 P.2d 1340, 1345 (Colo.

  4. Massey v. Prothero

    664 P.2d 1176 (Utah 1983)   Cited 3 times

    McCready v. Frederickson, supra, 41 Utah 388, 394, 126 P. 316, 318. See also Jennings v. Bradfield, 169 Colo. 146, 454 P.2d 81 (1969). In light of McCready, we affirm the district court's ruling that when Lewis purchased at the tax sale, he did so for the benefit of the other cotenants, and took no greater title to the Paragonah property than before.

  5. Sandstrom v. Solen

    370 P.3d 669 (Colo. App. 2016)   Cited 9 times

    Cotenants stand in such a relation of mutual trust and confidence towards each other that, as a general rule, the perfection of the common title through the purchase by one of an outstanding title to the common property inures to the benefit of his cotenants, and the title so acquired is held in trust for the latter to the extent of his interest in the premises if he elects within a reasonable time to contribute his share of the expenses necessarily incurred in the acquisition of the outstanding title, unless he has repudiated the relation, or is estopped from claiming his rights. Harrison v. Cole, 50 Colo. 470, 477–78, 116 P. 1123, 1126 (1909); cf. Jennings v. Bradfield, 169 Colo. 146, 148, 454 P.2d 81, 82 (1969) (holding when parcels are separately assessed, a tenant in common may pay a cotenant's taxes and receive a tax lien entitling him or her to a tax deed). ¶ 39 Bradford has provided us with no authority, and we have found none, in which an assessor was required to assess each interest held by a tenant in common separate from other cotenants.

  6. Turkey Creek v. Rosania

    953 P.2d 1306 (Colo. App. 1998)   Cited 25 times

    However, he has presented no evidence that the tenancy in common created any reliance by him on Turkey Creek or the lawyers that would give rise to a fiduciary relationship. See Jennings v. Bradfield, 169 Colo. 146, 454 P.2d 81 (1969) (in absence of other agreement, tenants in common owe no greater legal obligation to each other than to strangers). B.

  7. Stoltz v. Maloney

    129 Ariz. 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 10 times
    In Stoltz, there was no evidence that the treasurer mailed a proper delinquent tax notice to the owner; moreover, the treasurer did not file evidence that the sale notice had been posted or published, as the statute required.

    Where taxes are assessed separately, as here, against the interest of each co-tenant rather than against the common property as a whole, any co-tenant may acquire exclusively title to parts of the property based upon tax sales against the other co-tenants as long as he acts in good faith and is under no contractual obligation to pay the taxes for the other co-tenants. Neilson v. Hase, 229 Ark. 231, 314 S.W.2d 219 (1958); Jesberg v. Klinger, 187 Kan. 582, 358 P.2d 770 (1961); Jennings v. Bradfield, 169 Colo. 146, 454 P.2d 81 (1969); Guilbeau v. Jeanerette Lumber Shingle Co., 219 So.2d 545 (La.App. 1969), aff'd 255 La. 527, 232 So.2d 67 (1970). Further, assuming the tax sale to the state was properly accomplished, the tenancy in common terminated at that point and the former co-tenants no longer owed any duty to each other.