Laserfiche WebLink
MLRB <br />July 13, 2006 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />within the Board's jurisdiction to determine ownership of mineral estates. Such power lies <br />exclusively with district courts. O'Connor v. Rolfes 899 P.2d 227, 229 (Col. App. 1994). <br />However, pursuant to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act for the Extraction of <br />Construction Materials, (the "Act"), C.R.S. § 34-32.5-101, et seq., an applicant must demonstrate <br />that the applicant has the legal right to enter and initiate a mining operation on the subject <br />property. C.R.S. § 34-32.5-112(1)(b)(IV). Accordingly, the Division reviewed the legal right to <br />enter issue in this case and, as stated in its rationale, recommended approval of the application on <br />the condition that the Operator be required to notify the Division within 48 hours should a ruling <br />related to the rights to the sand and gravel at the site be made. <br />The Applicant also correctly azgues that it is improper for an attomey to testify before a <br />district court regarding the correct legal conclusion to be drawn in a dispute. Grogan v. Taylor. <br />877 P.2d 1374, 1384 (Colo. App. 1994). However, this matter is before an administrative boazd, <br />not a district court, and an administrative boazd may receive and consider evidence not <br />admissible under the rules of evidence "if such evidence possesses probative value." C.R.S. <br />§ 24-4-105 (7). Therefore, the testimony may be relevant as to the legal right to enter issue as <br />llong as Mr. O'Dell is not acting as counsel for the objectors (see C.R.5. § 24-4-105(9)(a), staling <br />"[a]n attomey who is a witness may not act as counsel for the party calling the attorney as a <br />witness'. <br />Office of Mined Land Reclamation <br />cc: Harvey W. Curtis <br />Joseph G. Middleton <br />Tanya T. Light <br />