Colorado § 37-43-159 - Determination of validity of dissolution.

§ 37-43-159. Determination of validity of dissolution.

(1) In case, upon the canvass of the vote at such election, it is found and declared by said board of directors that a majority of the votes cast at such election have been cast in favor of "Dissolution of the District - Yes", then the board of directors shall file a petition in the district court of the county wherein is located the office of such board to determine the validity of the proceedings had and of the proposed plan for the dissolution of such district. Such action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction of all parties interested may be had by publication of a notice of the pendency of the proceeding at least once a week for three weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the county where the action is pending; but if the district is situate in more than one county, then the publication shall be made in one newspaper in each county wherein the same is situate, such newspaper to be designated by the court having jurisdiction of the procedure. The court may provide for notice by posting the same not less than thirty days before the date set for the hearing of such petition in any county where no newspaper is published. Jurisdiction shall be complete in thirty days after the posting or last publication of such notice.

(2) The notice may be directed as follows:

"To all holders of indebtedness of the .............. irrigation district (insert the name of the district sought to be dissolved), to all landowners within said district, and to all others interested in the proposed dissolution of the said irrigation district", and said notice shall state the filing of the petition by the board of directors, the date of filing said petition and the court in which filed, and shall further state that the object of said petition is to obtain the dissolution of said irrigation district, and shall give the date set by the court for the hearing of said petition.

(3) At the time set for the hearing of said petition, anyone interested may appear and contest the validity of the proceedings already had, and of the plan proposed for the dissolution of said district or any portion thereof, including the validity of any portion of the indebtedness set out in said petition. The court shall determine the amount of the indebtedness of said district, and may determine the validity of any portion thereof, and in said proceeding, may adjust and determine the rights and liabilities of all parties and decree an adoption and execution of the proposed plan. Such action shall be speedily tried and judgment rendered.

(4) Any party shall have the right of appellate review, as provided by law and the Colorado appellate rules, at any time within thirty days after the entering of final judgment, and the case shall be heard and determined by an appellate court of the state within three months after taking the appeal. Unless appeal is made within such thirty days, the decree entered in said cause shall be final and binding upon all parties interested in said district, whether as officers, electors, landowners, creditors, or otherwise.

Source: L. 15: p. 309, § 4. C.L. § 2038. CSA: C. 90, § 536. CRS 53: § 149-3-58. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-3-58.

ANNOTATION

A creditor who appears and files his claim in dissolution proceedings tacitly admits their propriety, and it may be that he is estopped thereafter to assert objections that he might have urged had he not by his conduct acquiesced in the proceedings. In re Green City Irrigation Dist., 91 Colo. 202, 13 P.2d 1113 (1932).

A dissolution proceeding is not one in rem. It would be presuming too much to hold that a dissolution proceeding was actually one in rem which would bind those holding securities upon the property without personal service upon them. Beck v. Otero Irrigation Dist., 38 F.2d 275 (D. Colo. 1929).

Service on nonresident bondholders by publication only does not bar suit for equitable relief. Dissolution proceedings do not bar suit for equitable relief where plaintiffs, as holders of the bonds of the district, being nonresidents of the state, were served with no process other than the advertisement in the local paper. Beck v. Otero Irrigation Dist., 38 F.2d 275 (D. Colo. 1929).

Applied in Michigan Trust Co. v. Otero Irrigation Dist., 76 Colo. 441, 232 P. 919 (1925).