Laserfiche WebLink
06/25/1999 11:15 9706413061 GUNNISON COUNTY PAGE 06 <br />• • <br />3. The Court is persuaded that from 8t least the time of ownership by <br />Defendants' predecessor in interest, who acquired title in 1960, there was actual notice <br />of use of the route by the public. See Board of County Commissioners v. Flickinger, <br />687 P.2d 975 (Colo. 1984). This conclusion obviates the need to address whether or <br />not the 30 years of ownership (at least as the lien holder as argued by the County) is <br />immaterial and moots the issue of whether or not the 'exception' reised In Simon v. <br />e t j, 651 P.2d 418 (Colo.App. 1982), applies since there was actual notice. <br />4. The Court is not persuaded that the arguments of lathes or unclean hands <br />apply. The lathes argument presumably dates back to the time of the conveyance by <br />the County. However, based on the Court's conclusion that the period post-County <br />ownership Is sufficient to establish the adverse prescriptive use, the Court need not <br />further address that. <br />5. With respect to the unclean hands, the Court is not persuaded of the fact that <br />either the wnveyance by the County which did not except the easement or the <br />argument that the County felled to send written notice although obviously an In person <br />meeting occurred or the distinction between dealings with the adjoining property owner, <br />the marble mining company, OMYA, which closed the area for a period from May 1997 <br />to perhaps as late of January 1998, precludes enforcement of the public right-of-way at <br />this time. The Court notes that Defendants' predecessor in interest closed the property <br />for 4 years while doing explosive work. The rationale utilized by the mining company <br />seems to be more consistent with that closure for public safety concerns rather than a <br />failure of the County to act in a reasonable manner. <br />5 <br />