Laserfiche WebLink
', • <br /> <br />Bled In iGe <br />-_~ Cqr( <br />°' DISTRICT COURT, GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO ~ CeUf;•y 1;;:7f740 <br />'Case No_ 83-CV-167 SEP~~ 1984 <br />. „~ ~~y <br />QRDER RE-APPOINTING RECEIVER PENDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS "'L~ <br />O. C. COAL, INC., <br />-. <br />Plaintiff, <br />' vs. <br />.- <br />HENRY L_ WEAVER and OPAL WEAVER, <br />Defendants, ~,. <br />' vs. <br />1•SYLVIA McCORMICK, Third-Party Defendant. <br />The order addresses the Plaintiff's motion for appointment of a <br />receiver, and after reviewing the file the court finds that the <br />Defendants, weavers, have confessed said motion in part. <br />The court finds that its Judgment of Auyust 9, 1984, contemplated <br />,.'termination of the receivership established January 11, 1984, but <br />~'a review of the file demonstrates that on August 24, 1984, the De- <br />fendants timely filed a Motion for a New Trial which has yet to be <br />~' ruled on. <br />The court concludes that in view of the pending post-judgment motion, <br />the force and effect of ii:s Judgment of August 9, 1984, should be and <br />has been stayed, and that as a result the Receiver should continue to <br />act until further order of the court_ Authority to continue the <br />receivership after judgment or to permit appointment of a receiver <br />.•following judgment is found in Rule 66(a)(2) which authorizes a re- <br />ceiver "to perserve (property) during appellate proceedings." Given <br />.: the circumstances of this case, the need to keep the subject mine in <br />;operation and the uncertainty of the disposition of the motion for a <br />new trial and subsequent appellate proceedings, the court concludes <br />that the Receiver, Randy Hobbs, should continue his services as re- <br />~.ceiver, or if he has terminated said services, he should be reappointe~- <br />to act as receiver until further order of the court_ <br />~i., <br />r"°WHEREFORE, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT, That Randy Hobbs shall act <br />~~i=.as Receiver in this action with the same responsibilities and authorit:. <br />',initially invested in him by the court's order of January 11, 1984_ Hip <br />bond shall continue in full force and effect, it being the position of <br />`the court that it has not yet been released because Mr_ Hobbs has never <br />' been formally discharged as Receiver_ This appointment shall continue <br />~ in effect until 45 days after the court rules on the Defendants' motio:. <br />for a new trial, and continuation of the appointment beyond that date <br />is contingent upon a written motion by a party who desires that the <br />receivership continue beyond said date_ <br />DONE BY THE COURT, on September 21, 1984. C~.~ <br />strict Judge <br />xc: Miller <br />C:,rrico <br />