Laserfiche WebLink
, JUL. 16. 2005 12:§4PM COLEMAN WILLIAMS WILSON <br />N0.042 <br />P. 5 <br />snow which falls down to the toe of the slope, and also grades the rcrad, such <br />that gravel and debris fall to the toe. <br />7. Plaintiff argues that the County cannot abandon the support prism, <br />and cites the Court, by analogy, to C.R.S. Section 43-2-302 addressing allocation <br />of ownership based on vacation of a public road. <br />8. Defendant Lary A argues that, first, there are various procedural <br />issues which preclude Plaintiff's argument. Those inchide the language of the <br />Trial Management Order, the original pleadings, and the prior stipulations <br />including Trial Exhibit 2. They further argue that the testimony of"Brian Wiison, <br />that the County needs only 10 feet, is dispositive. Finally, they argue that the <br />fence line has been understood to be the property Ilne since the 1950x, and that <br />based on C.R.S. Section 38-41-111, Lazy A owns all property other than the <br />established county road east of that fence line. <br />9. Montrose County argues that, based on C.R.S. Section ~43-2-113, <br />they have not abandoned what is necessary for support, and, further, that <br />nothing in the Court's determination in this Instance will constitute a hermit for <br />Plaintiff to access onto Kinnikin Road without compliance with the Montrose <br />County access permit process. <br />90. For the Reply argument Plaintiff argues that there Is no evidence <br />for the "arbitragl' 15 feet on either side of the center lino for traveled road width <br />or 10 feet for the road prism, and that there cannot be abandonment if there Is <br />use. <br />11. The "Sur-replyr' filed by Lary A raises no new theories. <br />3 <br />