My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1997-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2021 7:11:38 PM
Creation date
5/2/2012 12:32:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
7/9/1997
Doc Name
Amended Answer & Counterclaims
From
District Court County of Pitkin
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
P. Rule 17 as to parties in this proceeding, Rule 19 as to necessary parties, or Rule 57 <br /> indispensable parties as to declaratory relief. <br /> Seventh Affirmative Defense <br /> (Failure to Exhaust Available Statutory Remedies) <br /> 114. For an affirmative defense to the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint, <br /> Defendants state and allege that Plaintiffs have legal, statutory remedies which were <br /> unaltered by the MCR bankruptcy proceeding and PLAN (§§ 3.1 and 6.2.2) but which <br /> Plaintiffs have not or even attempted to avail. Until such time as Plaintiffs have fully <br /> employed all available legal remedies provided by statute to collect ad valorem taxes owed, <br /> they should not be permitted to seek additional, non-statutory,or other,including but not <br /> necessarily limited to equitable or equitable sounding,remedies in this Court at this time. <br /> Eighth Affirmative Defense <br /> (Collateral Estoppel) <br /> 115. For an affirmative defense to the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint, <br /> Defendants reallege the allegations in paragraphs 49-99 above and further state: <br /> 116. Plaintiffs' as elected officials of Pitkin County, Colorado, were before the <br /> Bankruptcy Court in the MCR bankruptcy proceeding, and as parties to that proceeding <br /> they are now estopped from attacking or seeking to amend the approved PLA_', of <br /> liquidation. <br /> 117. Plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from seeking the relief contained in their <br /> complaint.The relief sought by this action is essentially that sought in Plaintiffs' motion to <br /> reopen the bankruptcy proceeding filed December 4, 1996 and denied by the Bankruptcy <br /> Court's"Order on Motion to Reopen",entered February 19,1996.It denied Plaintiffs' motion <br /> to reopen and reiterated the PLAN provisions that left"unaltered"Plaintiffs'legal,equitable <br /> and contractual rights antedating the bankruptcy proceeding(id.§§3.1,6.2.2)but rejected, <br /> in the PLA.\ as well as, in the "Order on Motion to Reopen" (Answer Exhibit 7, p. 5) any <br /> additional rights such as the relief sought in and by the motion to reopen the bankruptcy <br /> proceeding and the relief sought in this action. <br /> Ninth Affirmative Defense <br /> (Lacher) <br /> 118. For an affirmative defense to the allegations of Plaintiffs' complaint, <br /> Defendants reallege the allegations in paragraphs 49-99 above and further state that <br /> Plaintiffs have legal, statutory remedies which were unaltered by the MCR bankruptcy <br /> proceeding and PLAN(§§3.1 and 6.2.2) but which Plaintiffs have not or even attempted to <br /> 0viL No.97 cv 131-3 -22- AMENDED ANSWER&COUNTERCLAIMS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.