Actions brought for the recovery of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments which any person may claim by virtue of actual residence, occupancy, or possession for seven successive years having a connected title in law or equity, deducible of record, from this state or the United States, or from any public officer or other person authorized by the laws of this state to sell such land for the nonpayment of taxes, or from any sheriff, marshal, or other person authorized to sell such land on execution, or under any order, judgment, or decree of any court of record shall be brought within seven years next after possession has been taken as provided in this section; but when the possessor acquires such title after taking such possession, the limitation shall begin to run from the time of acquiring title.
Source: L. 27: p. 601, § 35. CSA: C. 40, § 141. CRS 53: § 118-7-6. C.R.S. 1963: § 118-7-6.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For note, "Adverse Possession in Colorado", see 27 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 88 (1954). For article, "One Year Review of Property", see 35 Dicta 48 (1958).
Limitation begins when deed placed in record. The seven-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until a deed upon which a party in possession relies as being sufficient to give him color of title has been placed of record. Poage v. Rollins & Son, 24 Colo. App. 537, 135 P. 990 (1913); Fallon v. Davidson, 137 Colo. 48, 320 P.2d 976 (1958).
When actual ouster of cotenants established. Until an actual ouster of any cotenants has been established by conduct, apart from mere use and occupation of the land by a party, this section giving rise to a claim of adverse possession does not begin to run. Fallon v. Davidson, 137 Colo. 48, 320 P.2d 976 (1958).
Void deed sufficient to set limitation into motion. A deed void upon its face is sufficient color of title to set in motion the seven-year limitation. Silford v. Stratton, 54 Colo. 248, 130 P. 327 (1913).
Void deed is not conclusive of good faith of the party claiming thereunder. Silford v. Stratton, 54 Colo. 248, 130 P. 327 (1913).
Defenses involve questions of law and fact. The defenses of the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds both involve questions of fact as well as law. Bushner v. Bushner, 134 Colo. 509, 307 P.2d 204 (1957).
Equitable defenses not invoked where statute of limitations applicable. The defense of laches is not available in a quiet title action because courts will not invoke equitable defenses to destroy legal rights where statutes of limitations are applicable. Jacobs v. Perry, 135 Colo. 550, 313 P.2d 1008 (1957).
When mineral estate is severed from the surface estate, actual adverse possession of mineral estate must be established separate from any possession of the surface estate. Kriss v. Mineral Rights, Inc., 911 P.2d 711 (Colo. App. 1996).
Applied in Callbreath v. Hug, 50 Colo. 95, 114 P. 298 (1911); Empire Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Weldon, 26 Colo. App. 111, 141 P. 138 (1914).