Laserfiche WebLink
and the trial court's judgment of $622,000, the Division presents the <br />following analysis. Based on research of relevant case law as well as <br />analysis of the history of Tatum subsidence issues, the Division is not <br />precluded from issuing the requested NOV. <br />i <br />Moreover, as more fully explained below, under the doctrine of issue <br />preclusion, Basin Resources should not be allowed to collaterally attack or <br />re-litigate any of the, issues that were fully litigated and resolved by the <br />courts. <br />In anticipation of the possibility of Basin Resources claiming that the <br />Division is precluded from issuing the NOV based on the doctrine of claim <br />preclusion because of the Tatums' suit (01 CV 026) regarding the <br />subsidence damage, DRMS states as follows: <br />Claim preclusion bars re-litigation of claims or issues which were or could <br />have been raised in a prior suit between the same parties. Meyer v. <br />Department of Revenue Motor Vehicle Division 143 P.3d 1181 (Colo. <br />App. 2006). Claim preclusion protects litigants from the burden of re- <br />litigating an identical issue with the same parties and promotes judicial <br />economy by preventing needless litigation. Id. <br />i <br />Claim preclusion applies to bar a second judicial proceeding when (1) the <br />first judgment is final; (2) the subject matter is identical to the first <br />proceeding; (3) the claims for relief are identical; (4) the parties in both <br />actions are identical;! and (5) the party against whom claim preclusion is <br />sought must has had 'a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first <br />proceeding. Id. <br />i <br />Here, there is no claim preclusion barring the Division's issuance of the <br />NOV because not all! of the above cited elements are present. Although, the <br />subject matters in the court action (01 CV 026) and the present NOV regard <br />subsidence-related damage, the claims for relief are different. In the court <br />action, the Tatums sought money to compensate them for the decrease in <br />value to their residence caused by the subsidence. In the present action, the <br />issue is whether Basin Resources is out of regulatory compliance. The <br />material damage caused by the subsidence is the basis for both the Tatums' <br />16