Background
Colorado Springs condemned Francisco Serna’s property in 2017 and obtained immediate possession. The City initially deposited $64,100, which Serna withdrew. After an earlier appeal and a valuation proceeding before commissioners, the property was valued at $103,203.75. The City deposited the remaining $39,103.75 valuation balance and later deposited $18,738.44 for accrued pre- and postjudgment interest.
In August 2023, the district court entered final judgment adopting the City’s proposed order, including language that the City’s deposits fully satisfied its just-compensation obligation. The order directed the clerk to hold the remaining registry funds in an interest-bearing account, but the registry did not in fact earn interest. After Serna’s appeal from that judgment was unsuccessful, the court disbursed the registry funds to him in February 2025. Serna then sought additional interest for the period between final judgment and disbursement.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. It declined to consider Serna’s argument that the final judgment remained unsatisfied during his prior appeal because he had not raised that theory below. He had not objected to the City’s interest calculations or the judgment’s satisfaction provision, and his later filings did not argue that the City’s registry deposits failed to satisfy the judgment.
The court agreed that the district court relied on the wrong statute when it treated Serna’s appeal as a trial delay under the eminent-domain interest statute. Postjudgment interest instead was governed by the general judgment-interest statute. But the error was harmless: payment into the court registry satisfied the judgment to the extent paid and stopped interest on that amount. The City’s June 20, 2023 interest deposit fully satisfied the judgment before Serna filed his earlier appeal, leaving no unpaid balance on which further interest could accrue.
Key Takeaways
- An argument that a condemnation judgment was not satisfied must be preserved in the trial court.
- Postjudgment interest in an eminent-domain case is governed by the general judgment-interest statute, not the eminent-domain provision governing pre-award interest.
- A public entity’s payment of the judgment amount into the court registry satisfies the judgment and ends further interest accrual on the amount paid.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between pre-award compensation interest in condemnation proceedings and postjudgment interest. It also confirms that an erroneous direction to hold registry funds in an interest-bearing account does not itself create a right to interest when the registry account does not earn it.