Laserfiche WebLink
month. Indeed, a ruling in favor of DMG and the Tatums on this motion may well lead to a <br />voluntary resolution of this controversy without the need for a hearing. <br />DMG and the Tatums recall that Basin invoked the related doctrine of "res judicata" in <br />contesting the proposed civil penalty assessment issued in connection with Notice of Violation No. <br />CV-2000-009. Basin suggested that the doctrine of "res judicata" limits the Tatums to the damage <br />recovery they obtained in the District Court in 1997 and therefore prevents DMG and the Tatums <br />from asserting claims for subsidence-related damage to Solitario after that date. Basin insisted that <br />Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009 is flawed because it is based on a damage claim that the <br />doctrine of "res judicata" bars the Tatums from pursuing. <br />The hearing officer for the Division of Minerals and Geology correctly refused to rule that <br />the doctrine of "res judicata" prevents the Tatums from proving additional diminution in the fair <br />market value of Solitario due to the damage the structure has siistain::d since 1997. The District <br />Court decision does not baz DMG or the Tatums from proving further diminution in Solitario's fair <br />mazket value because the 1997 decision necessarily focused only upon the diminution attributable <br />pre-1997 damage and the subsidence that had occurred up to that time. Although the Tatums <br />repaved the initial cracks in the structure, they proved in the District Court that the fair mazket value <br />of their repaired property had decreased from the value Solitario had before repairs became <br />necessary. <br />In addressing recurring damages to property over time, the weight of legal authority across <br />the United States holds that <br />Where injury caused by tort is continuing or periodic, damages are <br />recoverable only for the injury sustained up to the time of commencement of the suit, <br />-~- <br />