PERMFILE64197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BENDELOW LAW FIRM, r.c. Attorneys at Law Glenda Williams November 19, 2001 Page 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION A background summary will be helpful in your consideration of this Petition. The property which is the subject of the Reclamation Permit Application ("Property") is owned by More Family Ranches, LLC. ("P,.ore"). in the Spring of 2000, More and if r. Halsnes entered into two letter agreements in which the parties agreed that Mr. Halsnes would lease the Property for two years, undertake all necessary actions required for the establishment and operation of a gravel mining operation ("Operations") on the Property, and Mr. Halsnes would have an option to purchase the property ("Lease and Purchase Option"). Later in the year, after Mr. Halsnes had expended approximately $30,000 and hundreds of hours on the project, Lafarge approached More regarding Halsnes development of Operations on the Property. More later purported to terminate Mr. Halsnes' Lease and Purchase Option and entered into a leaze agreement with Lafarge (the "Lafarge Lease"). On August 15, 2001, Lafarge submitted the Lafarge Lease to the MLRB az the basis of its legal right to file the Reclamation Permit Application. Long before the filing of the Reclamation Permit Application, specifically on March 16, 2001, litigation had ensued between More and Mr. Halsnes (District Court Case No. O1CV32) regarding a claim by Halsnes that More wrongfully terminated the Halsnes Lease and Purchase Option. That matter is scheduled for trial in about three weeks, on December 11, 2001. Lafarge filed the Reclamation Permit Application with the knowledge of the pending litigation. Early this year, on May 18, 2001, counsel for Mr. Halsnes met with Division personnel to discuss the litigation regarding the Property and Mr. Halsnes' express desire to object as a parry to any reclamation permit application that maybe filed on the Property by anyone other than Mr. Halsnes. As a matter of fact, counsel had hoped to file with the Division at that time copies of documentation establishing Mr. Halsnes' interest in the Property. The Division personnel were extremely cordial and informative and provided counsel materials regarding the Act establishing the MLRB Rules, the Rules themselves, a Reclamation Permit Application Package, an Informal Conference Package and Party Status Request Forms. It also informed counsel about the Internet website mentioned above as a tool to monitor any new applications that may be filed with the Division. They explained that upon receiving an application, the Division would post the information on the website. Finally, they explained that until an application is filed, there is no method of accepting documentation regarding a piece of property in advance of the filing, and therefore, they could not accept Mr. Halsnes' documentation which was offered. Although they recognized Mr. Halsnes' desire to object as a party to any reclamation permit application that may be filed on the Property, Mr. Halsnes would have to wait to file documentation and his Request for Party Status after such permit was filed. Beginning in June 2001 and continuing through October 2001, a check of the website was made each week to intercept any filing of a reclamation germit on the Property. No filing was indicated on the site. Then much to everyone's shock, on October 25, 2001, it was discovered from another source that the Reclamation Permit Application had been filed on August 15, 2001, and accepted by the Division on September 12, 2001. As of October 31, 2001 the filing had never appeared on the website on which Mr. Halsnes was depending. Additionally, despite the statutory rules regarding disclosure of pertinent documents between parties in litigation, More never informed Mr. Halsnes of the filing until counsel for