REV89124 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a" k: ,: t r ~• COPY FOk YOUR INFORMATION DISTRICT COURT•~GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO"' Case No. 83-CV-167 ORDER FINDING DEFENDANTS ARE NOT IN CONTEMPT AN ACTS BY PARTIES., O. C: COAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. HENRY L. WEAVER, et al., Defendants 'and Third Party Plaintiffs, v . •. SYLVIA McCORMICK, Third Party Defendant. This order addresses the Plaintiff's motion tY.at the Defendants Weavers~be held in contempt of Court for operating the coal mine which is the subject of this action without proper authority. Mr. Miller appeared for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Carrico r<~r the Defendants Weavers. FINDINGS OF FACT Havinq heard evidence and reviewed affidavits in the file, the Court finds that after the Court appointed Randy Hohby as Receiver on January 26, 1984, efforts were made to obtain b1Yn~d Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) authority to resume optrrscion of the mine. About February 10 Defendant Henry weaver and his son met with a • representative of bILRD to deliver a bond which would allow Hobbs to operate the mine as receiver. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Beth Weaver idaughter-in-law of the Defendants) received a telephone call from t Mr. Bischoff, a supervisor with MLRD, indicating that everything appeared to be in order to recommence operation of the mine, except that he was awaiting word from a surety on the bond for the receiver. Mrs. Weaver interpreted the call to be an oral authority to resume operation of the mine and so informed the Defendants. As a result operations were started up on February 14, but after about one-half days work was done, Mr, Squire, on a routine mine inspection on behalf of MLRD, got the Defendants to voluntarily stop operations because the bond had not been officially approved. After further efforts to clarify the status ,of the bond, Mr. Bischoff did aivP ~r.al authority to the Defendants to resume mining operations on Febx~uarv 21, / Re ~rc~r rlf P .~RECE-~-VED ..--_ APR 3 0 1984 fl D 4med19t~R9E~"~