Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mrs. Phyllis Ary <br />January 24, 1992 <br />Page Three <br />I understand that A & S Construction Co., pursuant to the <br />above-referenced contract(s), removed material from Mr. Valdez' <br />land, concluding all work before December 1, 1984. You have, in <br />your files, copies of the attached evidence: <br />A) 1-page letter dated November 26, 1984, from <br />Demetrio A. Valdez to New Mexico State Highway <br />Department; <br />B) Letter dated January 8, 1985, from Demetrio A. <br />Valdez to New Mexico State Highway Department; and <br />C) Project Charge Order No. 5, Project SP-ETF-056- <br />1(202) dated (last) February 5, 1985. <br />I conclude you have, and should promptly assert, several <br />defenses to any claim or demand by Colorado Mined Land, including: <br />I. Statute of Limitations. Section 13-80-103(d), <br />C.R.S., provides that action should be commenced within <br />one year; <br />II. Statute of Limitations. If, for some reason a <br />one-year statute does not apply, Section 13-80-102(1)(1), <br />C.R.S., provides that action should be commenced within <br />two years. <br />Pursuant to the logic in Carlson v. McCov, 193 Colo. 391, <br />566 P.2d 1073 (1977), I am of the opinion that the one-year statute <br />applies, and any claim or demand based upon the work concluded by <br />A & S Construction Co. on Mr. Valdez' land before December of 1984 <br />is barred by the statute(s) of limitations. See also, Atchison. <br />Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad v. Tanner, 19 Colo. 559, 36 Pac. 541 <br />(1894). <br />III. As a defense secondary to the Statutes of <br />Limitations, I also conclude that A & S Construction Co. <br />was not the "Operator" of the mining operation conducted <br />on Mr. Valdez' land. Section 34-32-103(10) provides: <br /> <br />