My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE114585
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE114585
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:10:41 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 11:49:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005080
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/4/2006
Doc Name
Response to April 25 2006 Adequacy Review
From
EAI
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
D4/28/2D0H <br />Mr. lack R. Allen <br />A!!en !killing & &xcavating Company, Inc. <br />April 28, 2(106 <br />Page 2 <br />mineral interests in private deeds. See, e.g., Farrell v. Sayre, 270 P.2d 190 (Colo. 1954); <br />Morrison v. Socolofsky, 600 P.2d i.21 (Colo. App. 1979); Kinney v. Keith, 128 Pad 297 (Colo. <br />App. 2005); United States v. Hess, 346 F.3d 1237 (l0ei Cir. 2003). The only exception to this <br />rule is where the intent of the parties to the transaction creating the reservation was clearly to the <br />contrary. Farrell, 270 P.2d az 192. 1n determining the intent of the parties, the courts have <br />examined the actual language of the reservation, finding that where the word "mineral" follows <br />an enumeration of several specific minerals, it should be interpreted as pertaining to the same <br />types of ntitterals as those specifically set forth in the conveyance or reservation. Kinney, 12$ <br />P.3d at 306-07. [n Kinney v. Keith, for example, the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected the <br />azgument that mineral reservations using plusses such as "oil, gas and other nvnerals;' and a <br />"one-half interest in and to all oil, ;;as and minerals lying in, under or upon said gremises" <br />included sand or gravel. ld. at 303. <br />The language of the minerals reservation in the 1963 Warranty Deed is similar to the <br />mineral reservations that the Colorado courts have consistently held do not reserve sand or <br />grave]. See Farrell ("aIl mineral and mineral rights"); Morrison ("an undivided one-half of all <br />oil, gas and other nnerals nnderly ng the prenvses"). In light of the long-standing Colorado case <br />law outlined above, the mineral reservation in the 1963 Warranty Deed did not, absent a specific <br />intent to the contrary, reserve an interest in the sand and gravel om the Property. There are no <br />provisions in the 1963 Warrant}' D~;ed suggesting that the parties specifically intended to create a <br />reservation of sand or gravel, or that the language of the reservation should be interpreted in a <br />manner inconsistent with other restsvations using similar language. <br />Cn sununary, under Colorado law, sand and gravel are not normally treazed as minerals <br />with a ntinerai reservation Like that contained in the 1963 Warranty Deed. The Language in the <br />1963 \tiauanty Deed does not indicate an intent to reserve sand or gravel, and siatilar or identical <br />language has been interpreted by Colorado and federal courts to pertain only to energy or hard <br />rxk minerals. Consequently, based on the infomtation provided to us, it is our opinion that the <br />sarul and gravel tm the Property wa> rot reserved in the L963 Warranty Deed. <br />Please feel free to.contact either myself or Scott Hard( whit any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />r_' <br />oseph G. on <br />7GM:csi <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.