Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />the State) but to protect its interest in issues that Basin Resources was now <br />trying to re-raise but which were finally decided against the company in case <br />no. O1 CV 077.5 Specifically, the Board and Division asserted that Basin <br />Resources' standing and whether Basin Resources had a statutory right to a <br />hearing were decided in 01 CV 077 and that the company could not now re- <br />raise these issues. <br />The Tatums filed a motion to dismiss Basin Resources' appeal. The Tatums <br />asserted that the issues decided in 01 CV 077 became final when Basin <br />Resources chose to dismiss the appeal in that case. Therefore, Basin <br />Resources could notre-litigate these issues. As to the issue of costs and <br />expenses, Tatums stated that the trial court had not yet issued a final order <br />and therefore, there was no order for the appellate court to review. <br />i <br />Basin Resources responded by stating that if the Court of Appeals agrees <br />that the trial court erred in making its order of temporary relief final, then <br />that would affirm Basin Resources' right to a hearing which it could then <br />exercise. Basin Resources also argued that because the court in 01 CV 077 <br />granted Tatums' motion to dismiss, its order did not have a preclusive effect <br />on this appeal. <br />In their response to Tatums' motion to dismiss the appeal, the State <br />supported the motion and asserted that Basin Resources was precluded from <br />re-raising issues finally decided in 01 CV 077. <br />On November 22, 26,02, the Court of Appeals denied Tatums' motion to <br />dismiss but stated the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel could be <br />raised in briefs. The Court also stated that the issue of the assessment of <br />costs and expenses would not be final until the trial court reduced it to a sum <br />certain. Therefore, that portion of the appeal was dismissed without <br />prejudice for lack of a final order.6 <br />On January 3, 2003, the Court of Appeals accepted the State's cross appeal <br />and thereafter set a briefing schedule. On February 4, 2003, the parties <br />entered into a settlement agreement, prior to any briefs being filed in the <br />I <br />5 It should be noted that for some odd reason, Basin Resources had not named the Board or Division as <br />parties to the appeal, which was another reason why the State filed its own notice of appeal. <br />6 On November 22, 2002, the trial court fixed the amount of attorney fees at $39,487 plus expenses for a <br />total of $41,310. Basin Resources appealed this assessment to the Colorado Court of Appeals (Case no. 03 <br />CA 0039). <br />I <br />10