APPCOR11204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• HOLLAND & HART • Robert Hykan, Esq. February 16, 1984 Page 2 Land Reclamation Division in contravention of applicable statu- tory and regulatory provisions. In this case, therefore, it is the permittee rather than the landowner who is improperly attempting to utilize a mistake made by the Division to "adju- dicate property rights." While the Division's general reluctance to become involved in private disputes is understandable, in the present case that attitude amounts to overlooking a violation of applicable stat- utes and regulations and, in effect, condoning a continuing wrong being committed against my client. I recognize that you are proceeding in good faith to ascertain the relevant facts and have every intention of recommending that the Division take whatever remedial action may appear appropriate following a complete inquiry. In that regard, I cannot overemphasize the need for expediency and must reiterate my perception that, to date, the permittee's principal and most effective strategy has been to stall, and it can only be anticipated that this will continue in dealings with the Division. To address some of the questions you raised in our conver- sation last Friday, I have enclosed a copy of a letter dated February 2, 1984, which was sent by certified mail to Monte Pascoe and Gerald Sjaastad, attorneys for the permittee and surface owner of the property in question. That letter asserts that it is now readily apparent to all involved in the litiga- tion, specifically including the parties' attorneys, that no legal justification exists for the continuing intentional tres- pass. With respect to most of Section 15, the defendants have claimed only that they received oral permission from an indi- vidual who was once affiliated with my client, but subsequently died. Even if true, such oral permission would not legally justify continued and future mining on the subject property; nor would it constitute the prerequisite "documentation" which should have been furnished prior to issuance of the Mining Per- mit. With respect to one small portion of Section 15 (the N'~ of the S'~), defendants have asserted that their mining activities somehow extended the term of a pre-existing lease under the doctrine of "holdover tenancy." Please note that the lease relied upon was for a fixed 5-year term which undeniably expired on September 19, 1982. Subsequent to that expiration date, there could have been no "holding over" because no permit was in effect to allow mining of the coal in question. In fact, the permit which allowed mining in Section 15 was not