PERMFILE123615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

08/18/2006 07:07 7192751715 CONST SERVICES BLDG PAGE 08 Ms. Kate Pickford Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety August 17, 2006 Page 2 Allen has fully complied with these Rules by providing with its application both a validly executed and recordexi deed to the property, and a notarized, signed statement of the landowners, Jack and Susanne Allen, stating that Allen has the legal right to enter the property and conduct mining operations. See December 2005 112 Permit Application, Exhibit N. The Rules do not require a property owner to provide feather evidence of ownership, or to rebut conflicting claims of ownership in order to obtain a valid permit. Any such claims are to be resolved by the courts, and neither the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") nor the Division is empowered to determine mineral ownership disputes or to deny a permit on the basis that an ownership dispute lass arisen concerning the property to be mined. See C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4) (setting forth the exclusive grounds upon which the Board may deny a permit); O'Connor v. Rolfes, 899 P.2d 227, 229 (Colo. App. 1995). II. The Complaint to Qniet Title Does Not Affect Allen's Right'xo Enter And Mine Even if the Board or Division were to go beyond the legal requirements far a valid permit application, and consider the quiet title action, that action does not have any effect upon the validity of Allen's right to enter and mine its property. The quiet title complaint was filed by Robert Cargill and Neighbors for a Desirable Park County, Ina (collectively "Cargill"), and is based upon a 1963 Warranty Deed pursuant to which the grantors conveyed to the grantees a fee interest in certain property and reserved "one-half of all the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be produced from" a portion of that property. Cargill's complaint summarily asserts that the 1963 minerals reservation includes one-half of the sand and gravel within the subject property. The complaint does not dispute that Allen, as the successor to the original grantee under the 1963 Deed, owns 100 percent of the surface of its property and 50 percent of the minerals, sand and gravel therein. Cargill's complaint does not affect Allen's right to enter and mine sand and gravel since (i) it is undisputed that Allen owns at least 50 percent of the sand and gravel, and (ii) Cargill has provided no valid support far claiming even a partial interest in the sand and gravel. A. Regardless of the Validity of CatgilPs Claim, Allen has the Right to Enter and Mine. As discussed below, Cargill has failed to provide; any valid basis for alleging a 50 percent interest in the sand and gravel. However, even if Cargill was successful in establishing such an interest, that determination would have no effect upon Allen's right to enter and mine sand and gravel on its property. It is a fundamental principle of American property law that a "tenancy in common is created whenever an estate in real or personal property is owned concurrently by two or more persons under a conveyance or under circumstances which do not either expressly or by necessary implication call for some other form of co-tenancy." 86 Corpus ]uric Secundum, Tenancy in Common § 6 (2006). See also Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 964 (Colo. 2004)