Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendanttriallease
plaintiffdefendanttrialleasedeclaratory judgment

Related Cases

Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 71 F.3d 77, 138 A.L.R. Fed. 711, 64 USLW 2371, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1020
View Case »
Simpson v. Simpson, 233 Ga. 17, 209 S.E.2d 611
View Case »
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 119 S.Ct. 1624, 143 L.Ed.2d 882, 48 ERC 1513, 67 USLW 3681, 67 USLW 4345, 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,133, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3846, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4908, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 3019, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 247
View Case »
Town of Orange v. Resnick, 94 Conn. 573, 109 A. 864, 10 A.L.R. 1046
View Case »
Biggers v. Crook, 283 Ga. 50, 656 S.E.2d 835, 08 FCDR 217
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Capitol Federal Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Smith, 136 Colo. 265, 316 P.2d 252

Facts

The plaintiffs owned certain lots in Block 6 Ashley's Addition to Denver and claimed that a 1942 agreement among various lot owners, which prohibited selling or leasing to colored persons, was unconstitutional and a cloud on their title. The defendants, asserting rights under this agreement, filed a counterclaim for possession of the property. The trial court found that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners and that the restrictive covenant could not be enforced.

Plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of and in possession of certain lots in Block 6 Ashley's Addition to Denver and that on May 9, 1942 certain owners of lots in said Block, including plaintiffs' predecessors in title, entered into an agreement among themselves that the lots owned by them should not be sold or leased to colored persons and providing for forfeiture of any lots or parts of lots sold or leased in violation of the agreement to such of the then owners of other lots in said block who might place notice of their claims of record.

Issue

Is the written agreement among property owners prohibiting the sale or lease of lots to colored persons enforceable under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Is the written agreement among property owners prohibiting the sale or lease of lots to colored persons enforceable under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rule

The court applied the principle that racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable as they violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court further adjudged and decreed that the restrictive covenant ‘may not be enforced by this court as a matter of law, as to enforce same by this court would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the enforceability of same is hereby removed as a cloud upon the title of plaintiffs * * *.’

Analysis

The court determined that enforcing the restrictive covenant would constitute a violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. It referenced previous Supreme Court decisions that established the unconstitutionality of such racial restrictions, concluding that the agreement could not be enforced and was a cloud on the plaintiffs' title.

The trial court entered a decree and Declaratory Judgment pursuant to Rules 105 and 57, R.C.P.Colo. The court found that the plaintiffs were the owners in fee simple of the property described in the complaint and quieted their title thereto free and clear of any right of enforcement or attempted enforcement of the restrictive covenant or the Notice of Claim filed by defendants.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the restrictive covenant was unenforceable and that the plaintiffs held clear title to the property.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found the restrictive covenant unenforceable under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus affirming their ownership rights.

The court found that the plaintiffs were the owners in fee simple of the property described in the complaint and quieted their title thereto free and clear of any right of enforcement or attempted enforcement of the restrictive covenant or the Notice of Claim filed by defendants.

You must be