My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1997-07-31_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1997-07-31_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/28/2021 9:49:01 AM
Creation date
5/2/2012 12:49:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
7/31/1997
Doc Name
Civil Action No. 97-CV-131 Plaintiff Reply to Defendants Amended Answer and Counterclaim
From
District Court County of Pitkin
To
Mid-Continent Resources Inc
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.
/
10
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
45. Plaintiffs admit that there were no attempts to enforce liens by statutory <br /> remedies during the disposal of mining machinery and equipment subject to the lien for <br /> taxes in Schedule No. T004062. state that the automatic stay of bankruptcy and the <br /> express provisions of the Plan. Section 6.2.2, prohibited the enforcement of any liens on <br /> personal property, that such Section also provided for transfer of the property free and <br /> clear of the lien for personal property taxes, and except as so stated, are without <br /> knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of <br /> paragraph 99. <br /> 46. Plaintiffs are not required to respond to the averments of paragraphs 100 <br /> throu,zh 131 and no responsive pleading is filed with respect to those averments, but <br /> Plaintiffs state that the Second. Third. Fourth. Seventh. Eighth. and Ninth Affirmative <br /> Defenses are substantially frivolous, groundless or vexatious as defined in C.R.S. § 13- <br /> 17-101, et M. <br /> 47. With respect to the averments of paragraph 132, Plaintiffs incorporate by <br /> this reference the reply to the averments of paragraphs 49 through 99. <br /> 48. With respect to the averments of paragraph 133, Plaintiffs incorporate by <br /> this reference its reply to the averments of paragraphs 49 through 99, admit the averments <br /> of paragraphs 105 and 106, deny the first sentence of the averments of paragraph 107, and <br /> admit the second sentence of the averments of paragraph 107. <br /> 49. Plaintiffs admit the averments of paragraphs 134 and 135. <br /> 50. Plaintiffs deny that Defendants' representative requested a Certificate of <br /> Taxes Due for the property described in paragraph 136, are without knowledge or <br /> information sufficient to form a belief as to the averment concerning a prospective sale of <br /> real property, other than the sale alleged in paragraphs 95. 96 and 97 of the Answer. <br /> admit that an oral inquiry was made of the Assessor's Office concerning specific schedule <br /> numbers. on or about May 23. 1997. and that the inquiries came from a representative of <br /> Stewart Title to a representative of the Assessor's Office, that the oral request was <br /> followed by a written request from the Assessor's Office for Certificate of Taxes Due on <br /> specific tax schedules, not on specifically described real property. that such request was <br /> made on June 2. 1997, and requested Certificates for Schedules 23710, 7864, 7863, and <br /> 4062. and that such Certificates were issued June 3, 1997. Plaintiffs further state that the <br /> only specific request for specifically described real property was made by Bob Delaney at <br /> a meeting with his attorney and various Pitkin County representatives, on June 23, 1997, <br /> that such certificate was provided and resulted in the sale which occurred on June 30, <br /> 1997 and the resulting Second Amendment to Escrow Agreement (Amended Answer <br /> Exhibit 8). Except as so stated. Plaintiffs denv the averments of paragraph 136. <br /> 51. Plaintiffs deny the averments of paragraph 137. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.