Laserfiche WebLink
06-05-2006 02:39PM FROM-DOL NATURAL RESOURCES 3038663568 T-572 P.O10/027 F-633 <br />38. The Plaiati$a are the owners in lawful possession of iharight-of-way through the <br />easement. Plaintiff, SW ViUanesux, LLC, owns the Porter Seepage Ditch, in Weld County, <br />Colorado. 5W ViAauesux, LLC, and TiCp, LLC, own property in Wold County, which can <br />benefit from and use the Porter Seepage Ditch. While the Plaintiffs were the owners in lawful <br />possession of the Porter Seepage flitch, the Defendants have intentionally restrictal the use of <br />thesight-of--way. The Defendants have constructed a barricade to prevent water from passing <br />through tbe'tr property w the South Platte River. As a result, thr nantral hieratic flow of the <br />water had been altered, in violarion of the implied terms of the easement. <br />39. htterference with an easement without consent of the benefited owner constitutes <br />trespass. The Defendants Chavers did not have the consent of the Platntiffs to erect barriers m <br />prevent the untrue] flow of the water. Therefore, Defendants Chavers have trespassed on <br />Plaintiff's property. <br />40, 7n addition, the avvues of property burdened by a ditch easement has no right to <br />move nr alter the easetttent without consent of the benefited owner tutless he first obtains a <br />declaration of a court first such alteration will cause ao damage m the benefited owner. If the <br />burdened owner has alterrd the easement without such consent from the benefited owner, the <br />burdened owner is liable far his trespass. <br />41. As a direct and pmximate result of Defendants Chavers' trespass, Plaintiffs have <br />Suffered damages and lasses. <br />IX. FOt1ATH CLAIM OF YZETJF.F <br />(Quiet 1Ytie) <br />42. Real Property rights can br the subject of quiet title actions. <br />43. A quiet title action may be the only way to conclusively determine title to ware: <br />tights when the stau of the record title is unclear or unambiguous. This quiet title action would <br />be contested because thr Defendants contest the claim ofthe Plaintiffs, who are trying to assert <br />superior title to the easement over the Defendants. <br />44. Here, the Plaintiffs are claiming rifle ro a portion of a specific pazcxl of property <br />and requesting the court m fund that the Plaintiffs' tine is superior to any interest held or claimed <br />by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' right to the easement is held in the ditches grouted to their <br />predecessors in time prior to the ownership of the Defendants. <br />X. 1»ibTH CLAIM OF RELITF <br />( Iatentiotaal Interference with Coatractnat Obligations) <br />(13W 1'KO Joint Venture, I.LC v. Defendants Chavers) <br />45. Defendants have intentionally interfered with the contractual obligations between <br />the Plaintiffs and Lafarge. The Plaintiffs and Lafarge entered into a lease agreement whereby <br />they agreed that Lafarge had the right to sample, drill, and test for, develop, mine, quarry, <br />