Members of a prominent family who served in the town of Calhan’s government did not commit constitutional or antitrust violations by adopting a series of restrictions on recreational vehicle parks that did not apply to their family’s own facility, the federal appeals court based in Denver ruled this month.

Although a trial judge previously suggested the actions of Chaussee family members were “some misconduct” under state law, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit waved aside that concern. Local government leaders receive immunity for potential antitrust violations when they act in their official duties, explained Senior Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, and adopting ordinances is an official duty.

“Nothing in the Colorado Ethics Code provides that when a local government official violates the Code, such violation operates to undermine the finality of the government official’s actions or renders the government official’s action ‘unofficial,'” she wrote in the Oct. 13 opinion.

Thomas Brierton, the owner of Van Sant & Co., filed suit against the town and multiple members of the Chaussee family, accusing them of conspiring to prevent him from opening his own RV park that would compete with a longstanding facility operated by the Chaussees. Ultimately, Brierton was unable to comply with the new regulations and his site sits vacant.

Case: Van Sant v. Calhan

Decided: October 13, 2023

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for Colorado

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: Mary Beck Briscoe (author)

Paul J. Kelly Jr.

Veronica S. Rossman

Background: Federal judge finds Calhan officials likely engaged in ‘some misconduct,’ but no federal violation

In 2015, Brierton decided to rent spaces in his mobile home park to RVs to boost profits. Calhan had two existing RV parks at the time, including Cadillac Jack’s, a 37-space facility under the Chaussees’ control.

However, the town began proposing and enacting a series of ordinances to regulate RV parks. Brent Chaussee was a member of the planning and development committee, and Cameron and Tyler Chaussee sat on the town’s governing body. Each man took votes on the various restrictions, and it did not appear any of them disclosed their family’s connection to Cadillac Jack’s.

After the town passed an ordinance classifying Brierton’s property as a mobile home park, he moved to evict his tenants so he could convert entirely to an RV facility. But in October 2018, the town board enacted broader health and safety requirements on RV parks, alleging an “influx” of facilities. Cameron and Tyler Chaussee provided two out of the three votes to pass the policy.

Due to the costs of complying with the new regulations, Brierton abandoned his plans for an RV park. The two existing facilities, including Cadillac Jack’s, were largely exempted from the ordinance.

Brierton, through Van Sant & Co., then filed suit, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, a century-old law that prohibits unreasonable market restrictions on trade. The “conspiracy” to suppress RV park competition served as the basis for the claim. The company also argued the town violated its due process and equal protection rights under the law.

Last year, U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson sided with the defendants. The town did not deprive Brierton of “all economically beneficial uses” of his property, Jackson noted. Even if the ordinances exempted all of the RV parking spots in Calhan from the new regulations, he could not conclude the town lacked any plausible reason to enact health and safety rules for new facilities.

As for the Chaussees who were serving in town government, Jackson cited the Local Government Antitrust Act, which shields people from antitrust liability when they are acting in their official duties.

By not recusing themselves under the state’s ethics code, “it appears on the record before me that at least some of the town defendants did engage in some misconduct,” Jackson conceded. “But the claims at issue are antitrust claims.”

Van Sant appealed to the 10th Circuit, and the town’s lawyers responded Brierton was simply seeking to operate an RV park “free from government regulation.”

“Under Van Sant’s theory,” they wrote, “Van Sant would today have a protected property interest in building a nuclear waste facility on its property because the Town has yet to draft specific regulations governing such use.”

During oral arguments in September, Van Sant’s lawyers challenged Jackson’s commentary that the Chaussees allegedly broke state ethics rules, while ultimately excusing them from liability.

“What was supposed to happen?” interjected Judge Veronica S. Rossman. “You didn’t come with a finding from Colorado state court that there had been a violation of that (ethics) statute. Was this supposed to be a mini-trial before the district court on the question of whether there was an ethical violation that prevented them from voting?”

Marni Nathan Kloster, the lawyer representing the town and the Chaussees who voted on the ordinances, argued that Van Sant could have brought a different claim seeking to declare the regulations invalid based on the Chaussees’ personal interest in Cadillac Jack’s. But the immunity law protected her clients’ non-recusal in an antitrust case.

“Even though it’s completely unethical?” asked Senior Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr.

The panel ultimately did not conclude the Chaussees violated Colorado’s ethics requirements because it was unclear whether they had a conflict of interest under the vague terms of the law. Even if they should not have voted on the ordinances, wrote Briscoe, doing so was still an “official” duty and, therefore, was immunized.

As for Van Sant’s constitutional claims, the panel agreed Calhan only needed to show a legitimate reason for imposing health and safety regulations on new RV parks, which the town had done. The grandfather clause exempting the Chaussee family’s own park, Briscoe added, was not problematic.

“Van Sant does not assert, nor does the record indicate,” she wrote, that the existing RV parks “have any features or attributes that threaten the health, safety, and welfare of Calhan’s residents.”

The attorneys for Calhan and Van Sant did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Van Sant & Co. v. Town of Calhan et al.