My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE43364
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE43364
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:45:50 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:33:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005080
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/16/2006
Doc Name
Opposition to Objectors Motion
From
Attorneys for Allen
To
DRMS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the Division to decide ownership disputes, or to deny a permit based upon an ownership dispute. <br />See C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4) (setting forth the exclusive grounds upon which the Board may <br />deny a permit). The Colorado Court of Appeals has specifically held that the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Act, C.R.S. § 34-32-101 et seq., which establishes the Board and delineates its <br />duties and powers, does not "purport[] to grant the Reclamation Board jurisdiction to construe <br />deeds or to determine ownership of mineral estates. Such legal matters lie exclusively within the <br />province of the courts." O'Connor v. Rolfes, 899 P.2d 227, 229 (Colo. App. 1995). Thus, <br />resolution of the issue of any ownership in the minerals at the site is both unnecessary for <br />approval of Allen's application and beyond the jurisdiction of the Boazd. <br />c. Under Colorado law, sand and gravel are not reserved by minerals <br />reservations of the kind at issue here. <br />Even if the Boazd were to overlook the untimliness of the issue and decide to go beyond <br />its jurisdiction to consider the question of the ownership of the sand and grave] on Allen's <br />property, it is cleaz that Objectors have not established that anyone other than Allen owns those <br />resources. Under Colorado law, sand and gravel are not normally treated as minerals under a <br />general minerals reservation like the one contained in the 1963 Warranty Deed. Kinney v. Keith, <br />128 P.3d 297, 306 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). Thus, minerals reservations of the kind found in the <br />1963 Warranty Deed simply do not, absent a specific intent to the contrazy, reserve any interest <br />in sand or gravel. Id. at 306; see also, Farrrell v. Sayre, 270 P.2d 190 (Colo. 1954); Morrison v. <br />Socolofsky, 600 P.2d 121 (Colo. App. 1979); United States v. Hess, 348 F.3d 1237 (lOs' Cir. <br />2003). The starting point for an analysis of the intent of the parties is the document which <br />created the reservation. See Kinney, 128 P.3d at 306-7. When discerning the intent of parties to <br />a warranty deed containing a minerals reservation of the kind at issue here, the Colorado courts <br />have employed the long-established principle that "where an enumeration of specific things is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.