Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />On December 19, 2002, the trial court found in favor of the Tatums. As the <br />measure of damages the court used the "full amount of the diminution of <br />value", which is themeasure stated in the Coal Act and regulations. See 34- <br />33-121(2)(a)(II), C.R.S. and 2 CCR 407-2, Rule 4.20.3(2). The court <br />defined this measure as the difference in value of the property without <br />subsidence and the value with subsidence. The court found this difference to <br />be $670,000. The court subtracted the previous court judgment of $48,000 <br />to avoid any possible double recovery and awarded the Tatums $622,000 in <br />compensatory damages, as well as costs including attorney fees and expert <br />fees, and pre and post judgment interest. The trial court's judgment is <br />attached for your convenience as Exhibit F. <br />I <br />Basin Resources appealed the trial court's judgment to the Colorado Court <br />of Appeals. The appellate court rejected Basin Resource's argument that <br />Tatums' recovery was barred by tort law governing permanent injury to real <br />property or in the altiernative, by the doctrine of res judicata. Tatum, 141 <br />P.3d at 867-68. The court found that the damage alleged by the Tatums was <br />not a continuation of a permanent pre-1997 subsidence but was a second, <br />subsequent occurrence. Therefore, the claim was not barred under either <br />theory asserted by Basin Resources. <br />The appellate court also found that the Coal Act imposes no burden on <br />homeowners to speculate about what damages might occur in the future by <br />subsidence and therefore, Tatums were not required to allege in their earlier <br />suit a claim for future damage. Tatum, 141 P.3d at 868. The court further <br />concluded that the Coal Act does not confer on an operator found to have <br />caused subsidence damage the power to elect which remedy to provide (., <br />repair, replacement value or compensation for lost value). Tatum 141 P.3d at <br />870-71. Consequently, the court found that Basin Resources must <br />compensate the Tatums for the diminution in value of the Tatums' residence. <br />i <br />The Colorado Supreme Court denied Basin Resources' request for review on <br />November 17, 2005. The Court of Appeals issued the mandate on August <br />30, 2006. <br />B. Tatums' current request for NOV <br />In a letter dated December 7, 2006, Ann Tatum sent the Division a citizen <br />complaint requestingAat it issue a NOV against Basin Resources for <br />"failure to compensate the landowners." <br />14