My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE27795
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE27795
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:35:17 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:44:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/13/2007
Doc Name
Board Order -Petition for Review of a Notice of Violation For Failing to Compensate Property
Violation No.
CV2007001
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.