Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~'~ -~. <br /> <br />-2- <br />Arness-;•icGrif'i,. Coal Company <br />[dover.~be_ 4, 1976 <br />can e~^ress no opinion as to tF:e statue of this title. tIOCa- <br />ever, we do rake the observation that with regard to this <br />parcel of troperty, o-re erere informed by Energy Capital, Lt3. <br />that they did not have rights to coal on this nroaerty, and <br />that they only had rights to use the surface. The coal oc.•ner- <br />ship certificate that sae were shown by Calder & Company dated <br />February 26, 1976 on this parcel ,of property indicate3 that <br />the United States government ocaned the coml. The coal o~arer- <br />ship certificate was not clear a3 to who o•.aned the surface. <br />If the surface is o~:rned by Durango [west, Ltd, or Ray Islay <br />and Hallie Ismay, then P.rness-McGriffin Coal Company would <br />have the right to use the surface of this land pursuant to <br />the Exploration and Development P.creement of October 6, 1976. <br />r1 <br />U <br />2. On Januar}• 11, 1950 Ray Ismay, by warrant) deed <br />which is recorded in Book 283, Page 421-424 of the records of <br />LaPlata County, Colorado, conveyed approximately 59.806 acres <br />to The State Hic h•~ray Depart^i=_nt. There is no eYCeption in <br />this deed of minerals, coal in particular. In just looking at <br />this deed, it does not apuear that Energy Capital, Ltd. has <br />any rights in this property. Hc:aever, there are logo Colorado <br />cases which ma}~ be applicable on this point. The first or" <br />these cases is Vorth Sterling v.3:nifton, 137 Colo. 4^, 320 P.~d <br />968 (1939). The second of these cases is Com.:,issior.=rs v. <br />Morris, 147 Colo. 1, 362P.2d 202 (1961). Ir. substance, these <br />cases state the proposition that where streets and alle}•s ar=_ <br />dedicated in a plat to a city, where a strip of grou::d is con- <br />. ve}•ed to a crater district for the aurpose of constructing a-d <br />maintaining a ditch, and orhen a county obtai:.s a rig'~t of ;*=_y <br />for highway purposes, if the parties intended nothinc more =hen <br />an easement, an 'easement is all that is granted, even thouch <br />the actual document use3 to make such conveyance appears to <br />convey fee simple title to the land invol•red. These cases do <br />not apply, except by analogy, to our exact situation •,ahere 'ae <br />have a conveyance to the state. However, the analogy is _ tong <br />and if at the ti, ±.e sir. Islay made the conveyar.c=, it •:;as _..tended <br />that on'_f an easement be convPy~3, that would be ver~~ strong <br />evidence in tour:. It would appear that with record to this <br />54 acres, that three courses of action are available: <br />A. Exclude this property frc:^. the Exploration <br />and Devele?-.ent Agre~!-ent; <br />B. .?eve the State of Colorado deed t'ne minerals <br />~ J <br /> <br />