Opinion
Berger & Rothstein, P.C., David Berger, Commerce City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Richard L. Whitworth, Wheat Ridge, for defendants-appellees.
BULAND, Judge.
Both parties appeal from a judgment of the trial court determining liability for payment of water and sewer tap fees and other expenses. We reverse and remand the cause to the trial court to make additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The record discloses that in late 1969, defendants (Park Venture) initiated plans for construction of a mobile home park containing 173 trailer spaces on land within the boundaries of plaintiff North Washington Water and Sanitation District (District). The District provides water and sewer service to its residents.
A representative of Park Venture appeared at various meetings of the District Board through May of 1970 to discuss water and sewer tap fees that would be assessed in connection with construction of the park. During the initial appearance, he was provided with a copy of the 1967 District Regulations then in effect. There were no specific provisions in these regulations covering trailer spaces. However, the regulations provided for tap fees of $200 each for water and sewer and separate service lines to each 'residential structure' unless variations were approved by the Board. In addition, the regulations established charges for use of water and a monthly service charge of $1 for sewer for each residence. Users classified as 'commercial' were required to pay for only one sewer tap, but monthly service charges were substantially higher than for residences.
Prior to completion of the park, the District adopted new regulations on May 15, 1970, which specifically covered trailer spaces. These regulations assessed combined tap fees of $400 for water and sewer service to each trailer space. In addition, although a sewer service charge of $1 per month was continued for single family residences, a sewer service charge of $3 per month was assessed against trailer spaces. Finally, the regulations required a deposit of $15 for all new customers classified as 'residential' and varying amounts for new 'commercial' customers depending upon the size of taps. Both the 1967 and 1970 regulations required that the District approve all plans for extension of water and sewer lines.
As a result of negotiations relative to water and sewer lines for the park, it was agreed that all mains and service lines within the boundaries of the park would be installed, owned, and maintained by Park Venture. Two four-inch taps were authorized by the District for the park on its water mains, and meters were installed on each of these taps; one tap into the main sewer line was authorized. Park Venture paid $2,200 for these taps consisting of $700 each for the water taps and $800 for the sewer tap.
Following construction of the park, Park Venture was billed each month for the total water used by the inhabitants and $3 per trailer space for the sewer service. Park Venture was originally billed for water under the commercial rate, but the District subsequently applied the residential rate. In addition, the District assessed a $400 tap fee for each trailer space. Upon Park Venture's refusal to pay all but the water charges, the District filed the present case seeking to recover the tap fees, a $15 deposit for each of the spaces, $3 per month per space for sewer service, and certain charges for the services of its engineers in apparently reviewing the plans for the park and in inspecting installation of water and sewer lines. Park Venture denied liability and counterclaimed to recover various expenditures which Park Venture claimed to have incurred as the result of illegal acts of the District.
Trial was had to the court. As to the issue of sewer tap fees, the court found that in reliance upon the 1967 regulations and repeated negotiations with the District, Park Venture obtained financing for the project and expended substantial sums of money in developing the park. Since the 1967 regulations allowed industrial producers to pay one sewer tap fee of $200, the trial court apparently concluded that the District was estopped to claim more than one sewer tap fee. However, the court's findings are inadequate because it made no findings which disclose why Park Venture qualified as an 'industrial producer', and the record reflects that Park Venture paid $800 for the sewer tap fee instead of $200.
The trial court also concluded that a $200 sewer tap fee for each trailer site was unreasonable. However, the negotiations between the parties covered water and sewer tap fees together, and the court made no findings which disclose why it determined the sewer tap fee was unreasonable and the water tap fee was not. Moreover, it is not clear whether the court's finding is directed to the 1967 or the 1970 regulations.
The trial court concluded that Park Venture was liable for a $200 water tap fee for each trailer site because Prak Venture was aware of the existence of this charge in the 1967 regulations for each 'residential structure'. However, the regulations impose a similar charge for each sewer tap to a 'residential structure'. For the reasons stated earlier, we are unable to determine on what basis the court concluded that Park Venture was obligated for the water taps but not the sewer taps, since their negotiations covered both tap fees together.
On the issue of monthly sewer service charges, the court concluded that 'considering the totality of the negotiations and actions of the parties', it was unreasonable and arbitrary to assess a monthly service charge of $3 per trailer space. The court also concluded that there was no rational basis for a distinction between a sewer service charge of $1 per month for a single family dwelling and a sewer service charge of $3 for a trailer space. The findings fail to indicate whether: (1) The trial court applied the doctrine of estoppel against the District, thus barring them from applying the 1970 regulations; or (2) whether the trial court concluded that the 1970 regulations applied to Park Venture but that the basis on which the District assessed a different charge to a single family dwelling from a mobile home park was arbitrary and unreasonable as a matter of law.
The trial court concluded that there was 'adequate basis' for the District to charge Park Venture $15 per trailer site as a deposit under the 1970 regulations. However, the 1970 regulations state that 'all new customers shall furnish a deposit' of $15, and the record reflects that Park Venture is the only customer billed. The court did not state on what basis it interpreted this regulation to authorize the District to charge one customer the equivalent of 173 deposits of $15 each.
The trial court awarded the District judgment in the amount of $2,037.20 for unpaid engineering fees without findings of fact or conclusions of law. The trial court must determine on what basis the court concluded that Park Venture was liable for such fees.
The trial court determined that there was 'no rational basis to support' Park Venture's counterclaim and therefore dismissed the same. However, it is not clear whether the court found the evidence inadequate to support the claim, or, whether the court concluded that there was no legal theory advanced under which the District could be liable therefor.
Inasmuch as we are unable to determine on what specific grounds the trial court reached its decision, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with C.R.C.P. 52(a) and enter appropriate judgment thereon. See Hipps v. Hennig, 167 Colo. 358, 447 P.2d 700.
ENOCH and PIERCE, JJ., concur.