Laserfiche WebLink
Third, § 13 -17 -202 does not apply to the proposed settlement because the court's <br />decision includes certain limitations on use more restrictive than those included in the <br />proposed settlements.. In its decisions, the Court restricted the Town of Breckenridge <br />from calling for water when flows for the whitewater course would be below 100cfs, and <br />restricted the Eagle District from calling for water when flows for the course would be <br />below 30 cfs. The court also denied the Town's and the Districts claims for piscatorial <br />rights. These restrictions together prevent the Town and the District from calling for <br />water during those off - season months when boating is not possible. Therefore, the <br />Applicants did not "recover a final judgment in excess of the amount offered." <br />F. The State Requests A Hearing In Case The Court Finds An Award of <br />Attorney Fees Appropriate <br />If the Court should determine that an award of attorney fees is proper in this <br />case, the court must enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the <br />claim or defense lacked substantial justification and make findings of fact sufficient to <br />justify the amount of attorney fees awarded. In re Marriage of Aldrich, 945 P.2d <br />1370, 1379 (Colo.. 1997); Pedlow v. Stamp, 776 P.2d 382, 386 (Colo. 1989). <br />Accordingly, where a court determines it is appropriate to award attorney fees against <br />a party, that party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Id. <br />For the reasons discussed in this Response, the State believes any award of <br />attorney fees would be inappropriate. If, however, the Court should determine that an <br />award of attorney fees is proper, the State is entitled to and requests an evidentiary <br />hearing. <br />Where a court determines that a claimant's motion for attorney fees and costs <br />should be denied, no hearing is required. Webster v. Boone, 992 P.2d 1183, 1188 <br />(Colo. App. 1999). Accordingly, if the Court denies the Applicants' motion, the State <br />withdraws this request. <br />simply ignore these differences, because such differences will always be the case in water <br />matters. No case law supports an argument for ignoring such differences. <br />10 <br />