Laserfiche WebLink
Apart from the motion, the Division is unable to address this claim <br /> unless MCR and the Trustee set forth the specific reclamation tasks <br /> they believe have cost more than what is reasonable as well how <br /> they determine what is "reasonable . " <br /> In addition, depending on when any reclamation task included <br /> in their claim occurred, MCR and the Trustee' s claim may be barred <br /> by applicable statute of limitations, section 13-80-102, C.R.S, <br /> and/or their failure to mitigate damages . <br /> Fifth Claim for Relief <br /> MCR and the Trustee allege that the LLC has expressed a desire <br /> to use improvements for post-mining uses and does not want them <br /> destroyed. They ask the court to issue an injunction to prevent <br /> the Division from demolishing certain improvements - despite the <br /> fact that they admit that the reclamation plan presently requires <br /> the demolition. <br /> Position: The Division made substantial attempts to resolve <br /> this issue last Spring. The Division' s position at that time was <br /> that if the Division received a written statement from the owner of <br /> these structures that* the owner wanted the structures retained and <br /> absolved the Division from any reclamation responsibility for those <br /> improvements, the Division would leave the structures standing. <br /> Taking as true the allegation that the LLC owns all of the <br /> specified improvements, the Division' s present concern with the <br /> fifth claim is that MCR and the Trustee are uncertain who will <br /> ultimately own the land upon which the improvements are located. <br /> According to MCR and the Trustee' s 1999 discovery responses, which <br /> 18 <br />