Laserfiche WebLink
6595223 <br />38. The Plaintiffs are the owners In ]awful possession of the right-of-way through the <br />easement. Plaintiff, SW Villaneaux, LLC, owns the Porter Seepage Ditch, in Wcld County, <br />Colorado. SW Villaneaux, LLC, and T'KO, LLC, own property in Weld Couaty, which can <br />benefit from and use the Porter Seepage Ditch. While the Plaintiffs were the owners in lawful <br />possession of the Potter Seepage Ditch, the Defendants have intentionally restricted the use of <br />the right-of--way. The Defendants have constmcted a barricade to prevent water fmm passing <br />through their property to the South Platte River. As a result, the natural historic flow of the <br />water had been altered, in violation of the implied tetras of the easement. <br />39. Interference with an easement without consent of the benefited owner constitutes <br />trespass. The Defendants Chavels did not have the consent of the Plaintiffs to erect barriers to <br />prevent the natural flow of the water. Therefore, Defendants Chavcrs have trespassed on <br />Plaintiff s property. <br />40. In addition, the owner of property burdened by a ditch easement has no right to <br />move or alter the easement without consent of the benefited owner unless he first obtains a <br />declaration of a court that such alteration will cause no damage to the benefited owner. If the <br />burdened owner has altered the easement without such consent from the benefited owner, thc <br />burdened owner is liable for his trespass. <br />41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants Chavers' 4respass, Plaintiffs have <br />suffered damages and losses. <br />IIf. FOURTH CLAIM OF RELIEF <br />(Quiet Tltle) <br />42. Real Property rights can be the subject of quiet title actions. <br />43. A quiet title action may be the only way to wnclusively determine title to water <br />rights when the state of the record tide is unclear or unambiguous. This quiet title action would <br />be contested because the Defendants contest the claim of the Plaintiffs, who ate trying to assert <br />superior title to the easement over the Defendants. <br />44. Here, the Plaintiffs are claiming title to a portion of a specific parcel of property <br />and requesting the court to find that the Plaintiffs' title is superior to any interest held or claimed <br />by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' right to the easement is held, in the ditches granted to thew <br />predecessors in title prior to the ownership of the Defendants. <br />X. FIFTH CLAIM OF RELIEF <br />( Intentional Interference with Contractual Obligations) <br />(SW TKO Joint Venture, LLC v. Defendants Chavcrs) <br />P. it <br />45. Defendants have intentionally interfered with the contractual obligations between . <br />the Plaintiffs and Lafazge. The Plaintiffs and Lafazge entered into a lease agreement whereby <br />they agreed that Lafarge had the right to sample, drill, and test for, develop, mine, quarry, <br />