Laserfiche WebLink
IP,EP-'_- t7D 6':°1 F?Ohl:='iN^_Oal a-~T_tili~ M- -00625c°E?0 Tq:~~3?Sc''~7g cArE:E7 <br />..a.l LI ~.:w r..,r vl~.,u III nVi,~rom IVwta1 LCi7nL f77A IYV. 1 4UC y~• C[!G C, J^. <br />~4 ~. i .yi <br />a~ C~~ <br />placid a new interpretation on the ASL"p~L Stopped performing, and interfered with Tatums~ <br />use of their water by engaging tho assistance of legal cotmsel, and state and local water I <br />o tale. The Court flnda that the defendant breached its Agteement with Tatum and sought <br />raaaana including a aew interpretation to a honoring the A~eement_ Defendant took ...J <br />actions which had the effect of depriving Tatum of the use of their water daring the summers of <br />9 alums oases tnc u ors o y crop summer atr loss of <br />grazing pasture each suattner. Damage for loss of use of their water doting these summer <br />seasons is S8,000.00 per summer which totals S32,000.00. Ikfeadant has breached this <br />Agreement and !n doing so ban caused damage to Tatum. Tatum is also entitled to specific <br />enforcxment of the Agreement according to its tcrma; that is, the continued exchange of water <br />each iaigation season that it is available. The Cotut reeoanues that adiudicatian in the water <br />court may be required to accomplish the Agreements' abjecdve. Nr'~~ct;,i~°tsz , <br />dement To Exchatt¢e 'Water Rights-Consolidated Ditch: Plaintiff§ have failed to <br />show by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of their claim that they had an <br />Agreement to exchange water on the Consolidated Ditch, although there was evidence of somc <br />agcoement involving the trade, or use, of waters to irrigate the Torres acreage. Plaintiffs have <br />failed to prove by a preponderance of the widence, the existence of this exchange or sale of <br />water rights. <br />Subeidanec Issue: Evidence at trial establiehnd that extensive underground coal mining <br />operations were conducted ttea~, and under the plaintiffs property line and within 300 feet of <br />thou residenco. Subsidenco wan evident is various locations an the Tatum property, including <br />the railroad tracks running through the Tatum property, and a sink hob Hoar the Tatum <br />residence. The Tatum residence was considerably damaged by the subsidence, which was <br />caused by the mining operation. Tatttms did not cawe nar contribute to the damage in any <br />way. Damages to the residence include the cost of past repairs and cost of future repairs, and <br />have caused a diminution ofvalue of the praperry. Tatums~tave spent $14,300,00 nttcmptirtg <br />repairs to the property and will be requited to spend addltiottal sums to completely restore the <br />existing damage cawed by the subsidence. The fair market value of the property has been <br />diminished by subsidence damage. The fair market value of the property according to <br />testimony provided at trial is 5260,000.00. The setae testimony showed that, but for the <br />existence of the ventilation shag the lack of a working well near the ventilation shaft, and the <br />subddence damage, the fair market value would be $325,000.00. Twenty percent of the <br />diminution In value i~ attributed to the lack of a working wall. Plaintiffs have, thus, suffered a <br />