Laserfiche WebLink
Statement of Reasons, the Tatums argued that the settlement agreement did not baz claims, <br />including enforcement actions (such as NOVs), arising from their lawsuit for damages, and <br />that the Division was acting within its statutory and regulatory authority in taking the <br />actions it did. <br />The Division filed two briefs, one of which azgued in support of the NOV (the Division's <br />other brief addressed the bond increase only). The Division argued that the Board should <br />uphold its decision to issue the NOV because the settlement agreement entered into by the <br />parties followed a District Court ruling that the Division properly vacated without <br />prejudice an earlier NOV related to subsidence. This meant that the Division reserved the <br />right to pursue an enforcement action again. Furthermore, the Division argued that the <br />settlement agreement did not preclude it from enforcing its own rules and regulations: the <br />fact remained that Basin had violated the Act by failing to compensate the Tatums for the <br />diminution in value of their residence, as required by Section 34-33-121(2)(a)(II)(B) of the <br />Act and Coal Regulations Rule 4.20.3(2)(b)(ii) and as set forth in the NOV. <br />10. Based on the evidence presented, including the parties' briefs and oral arguments offered <br />at the heazing, it is appropriate for the Boazd to deny Basin's appeal and to uphold the <br />Division's decision to issue the NOV. The settlement agreement entered into by the <br />parties did not preclude the Division from bringing future enforcement actions. The <br />Division's authority to bring future enforcement actions was preserved by the District <br />Court in Tatums v. MLRB, case no. Ol CV 038 and in Basin Resources v. MLRB et al., <br />case no. O1 CV 077 when the court issued a final order vacating the eazlier NOV without <br />prejudice. This matter was decided by the District Court prior to the settlement agreement. <br />Even if the settlement agreement was interpreted to preclude an enforcement action based <br />Basin NOV Appeal, C-1981-Ot3 <br />