Laserfiche WebLink
I. <br />I Basin first contends the trial court erred in finding that <br />homeowners' recovery was not barred by principles of tort law <br />governing permanent injuries to real property or, alternatively, by <br />the doctrine of res judicata. We disagree. <br />Basin relies on the decisions in Hoery v. United States, 64 <br />P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003); Colorado National Bank v. Irvine, 105 Colo. <br />5881 101 P.2d 30 (1940); and Middlekamp v. Bessemer Irrigating <br />Ditch Co., 46 Colo. 102, 103 P. 280 (1909). In those cases, the <br />Colorado Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in an action for <br />permanent injuries to land must recover all damages, past, present, <br />and future, in one action. See Middlekamp v. Bessemer Irrigating <br />Ditch Co., su ra. Basin asserts the injury to homeowners' property <br />is a continuing permanent injury and, therefore, homeowners may <br />I <br />note recover more than the $48,000 sum they were awarded in 1997. <br />~ In Hoery, the court identified the following factors constituting <br />a claim for permanent injury: (1) the structure causing the injury <br />must be intended to be permanent, and the resultant property <br />invasion must be one that will and should continue indefinitely; (2) <br />4 <br />