Laserfiche WebLink
the damage to the property must not be reasonably abatable <br />without taki Ig extraordinary measures; (3) the structure must have <br />been constructed with lawful authority; and (4) the structure must <br />be socially beneficial. Basin argues that these four factors were <br />satisfied in the initial case, that the injury to homeowners' property <br />established therein was therefore permanent, and that homeowners' <br />cannot recover damages in excess of their December 1997 <br />judgment. W are not persuaded. <br />In revie ~'ng a final judgment, we are not bound by the trial <br />court's conclusions of law. Montemayor v. Jacor Communications, <br />Inc., 64 P.3d 916 (Colo. App. 2002). However, we defer to the trial <br />court's findings of fact unless they have no support in the record. <br />-- See Peterson v. Ground Water Comm'n, 195 Colo. 508, 579 P.2d <br />629 (1978). <br />Here thj trial court determined that homeowners had <br />established that a "second or subsequent incident of coal mine <br />subsidence" had occurred to their residence after December 1, <br />1997. Homeowners' expert witness testified that the mine <br />- ~ experienced a period of "dormancy" for approximately three years <br />s <br />