Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />HOLLAND & HART LLF <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />OENYER • ASPEN <br />BOULDER•COLORADO SPRINGS <br />DENVER TECH CENTER <br />BILLINGS • BOISE <br />CHEYENNE•JACKSON HOLE <br />SALT LAKE CITY • SANTA FE <br />WASHINGTON, D.C. <br />SUITE 3200 <br />555 SEVENTEENTR STREET <br />DENVER, COLORADO 00202.3879 <br />MAILING ADDRESS <br />P.O. BOX 0]49 <br />DENVER, COLORADO BW01-0749 <br />TELEPHONE (303) 295-BOOD <br />FACSIMILE (303) 295-8261 <br />Michael D. Martin <br />(303) 295-8103 <br />(303) 975-5387 Fax <br />mmarlin~hollandhari.cam <br />Floyd K. Murr, Esq. <br />501 1/2 Main Street <br />Walsenburg, CO 81089 <br />June 7, 2002 <br />Re: Chacon Property <br />Dear Mr. Murr: <br />As I indicated to you in my earlier letters, this firm represents Mr. Paul <br />and Mr. Daniel Chacon. We have completed our investigation of the claims of <br />your client, Walsenburg Sand & Gravel for the use of the road over the Chacon <br />property and we do not believe that there is any possibility that the road is a <br />public road under C.R.S. § 43-2-201(1)(c). There are several reasons for this <br />conclusion, including the fact that the public does not use the road, since it does <br />not lead to any other right or way or road but in fact, dead-ends at your client's <br />property. In addition, your client has been the only significant "user of the <br />road". Furthermore, we have been assured that several appropriate <br />governmental officials will testify that the road is not a public road. <br />At best, if you prevail in your threatened litigation, you might establish a <br />private right of way or easement by prescription or adverse possession. In that <br />case, the relevant law of Colorado would prohibit you from expanding the use <br />of the easement, permit the Chacons certain control rights and the easement <br />would not include your present use of the water line and telepi-,one line from <br />our boundary. It is not clear that you would prevail in that case, since you <br />client has other access to the highway which it uses regularly, particularly after <br />7:00 pm. A picture of their access gates and sign is attached. <br />We propose a settlement of this matter to avoid the cost of litigation and <br />to regulate the use of the road in a way that would be more beneficial to your <br />client than the potential court's decree and have some mitigating benefits to my <br />clients. The proposed settlement would be as follows (and this settlement <br />proposal is made pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Evidence and is intended to <br />be a privileged settlement offer and not admissible at trial): <br />