PERMFILE100850

• Permit No: M1994011
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/29/1985
• Doc Name: DISTRICT COURT MONTROSE CNTY COLO CASE 95-CV-30
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

and Bob Sutherland also testified that sand and gravel in [he
whole western area was very common and that most of [he land was
like these mining claims.
The Sutherlands testified that what made this sand and
gravel valuable to them was having the availability of water to
wash and process the gravel and relatively easy access by virtue
of Highway 90 in order to haul out the gravel. The Sutherlands
testified they were familiar with the properties in the west end
of the county, that they had been involved in mining operations,
gravel operations and construction for several years, and testi-
fied that sand and gravel is not regarded as a mineral in that
area.
In addition to being used as farm ground and grazing
ground, the testimony of Plaintiffs established that some sand
and gravel had been extracted from the mining claims on at least
two prior occasions involving a combination of outright sale and
trade of services with the phone company and the County of
Montrose. The total area involved in these prior sand and gravel
sales during Plaintiffs' ownership was described as consisting of
20 to 30 acres total. Plaintiffs' testimony also indicated that
the most amount of sand and gravel sold during any one year would
be about 53,000. Plaintiffs were never involved in any commer-
cial operation for sand and gravel and never obtained any permits
to do so. The sand and gravel was used internally on the roads
or traded or sold on a limited basis.
During Plaintiffs ownership, Plaintiffs conveyed, by
deed dated August 8, 1985, a portion of the property to the
County of Montrose for highway purposes and excepted therefrom
all oil, gas and "mineral rights and minerals, metals, and
metalliferous substances of every kind." Plaintiffs testified
this deed was prepared by the County Attorney and was specifical-
ly intended to reserve all the minerals relating to gold, pre-
cious minerals and gravel, although sand and gravel was not
mentioned.
Finally, the Plaintiffs decided to sell the ranch and
entered into a contract dated April 19, 1989 to sell the property
to some people by the name of Witt. This sale actually involved
an exchange of property whereby people by the name of Fedrick
would actually buy the property from Plaintiffs and exchange the
property to Wit[, the ultimate buyer of the ranch. The Defendant
Silver Hawk then purchased the subject property by contract dated
August 18, 1992 from Witt.
The testimony indicated the individual partners in the
trust had discussion amongst themselves as to whether or not to
sell the property and, after a divided decision to sell the
property, had discussions concerning their intent regarding what
they were going to sell. Paragraph 21 of the contract of April
4