Laserfiche WebLink
Similarly, Snowcap and the Board cannot assert that Fontanari has waived the right to <br />raise the lack of subject matter jurisdiction of this Board. Currier v. Sutherland 213 P.M. 709, <br />712 (Colo. 2009) (defining subject matter jurisdiction as the authority of a tribunal, conferred by <br />statute or constitution, to handle and render judgment on various issues and causes). Subject <br />matter jurisdiction is never waived, and action taken by a tribunal lacking subject matter <br />jurisdiction is a nullity. People v. Sandoval 383 P.M. 92, 101 (Colo. App. 2016) <br />Determining Snowcap's contention — as well as Fontanari's defenses and third -party <br />contract contentions - would require this Board to engage in contract interpretation and <br />declaration of rights under a written instrument. This would constitute clear and reversible error <br />by the Board inasmuch as it exceeds the specific, and limiting, powers granted to the Board by <br />the General Assembly. <br />Relief Sought <br />As its first relief, Fontanari requests an Order of this Board striking the 2003 Purchase <br />and Sale Agreement and the 2003 Special Warranty Deed from the record together with any <br />conclusions by DRMS Staff based upon these documents. <br />As its further relief, Fontanari requests an Order of this Board prohibiting any and all <br />parties, witnesses and counsel from asserting - either by reference, comment or written legal <br />argument — that the 2003 Purchase and Sale Agreement and/or the 2003 Special Warranty Deed <br />constitute any consent or lack of objection by Fontanari to the reclamation activities proposed in <br />TR -69. <br />0 <br />