_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (181)

Home Browse Search

make extraordinary efforts in an attempt to mitigate damages. Burt v. Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church of Broomfield, supra; Powell v. Brady, 30 Colo. App. 406, 496 P. 2d 328 (1972) , aff'd sub nom. , Brady v. Denver, 181 Colo. 218 , 508 P. 2d 1254 (1973) . The "clean hands" maxim simply means that equity refuses to lend its aid in a manner to one seeking its active interposition who has been guilty of fraudulent or unconscionable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks relief. Bushner v. Bushner, 134 Colo. 509, 307 P.2d 204 (1957) ; Conestoga Pines Homeowners' Ass'n Inc. v. Black, 689 P. 2d 1176 (Colo. App. 1984) . To justify the application of the rule of clean hands, the mis- conduct must relate directly to the transaction concerning which complaint is made or which is the subject matter of the litiga- tion. Rhine v. Terry, 111 Colo. 506, 143 P. 2d 684 (1943) . In the present case, the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff opposed MCR's proposed liquidation plan was premature, and now, is without basis. On March 16, 1994, the plaintiff voted in favor of the liquidation plan. Thus, the principal ba- sis for the defendants' motion no longer exists. However, it should be noted that even if the plaintiff had voted to reject the plan, such action would not have formed a ba- sis on which to assert the defenses of failure to mitigate dam- ages and unclean hands. The plaintiff as a creditor had a right to vote to reject the proposed liquidation plan and such action would not have been unreasonable. The plaintiff has a right to protect its interests, and, if there were objectionable provi- sions in the plan, then the plaintiff had a right to act accord- ingly. It should also be noted that the doctrine of unclean hands does not apply here because the liquidation plan only concerns MCR; none of the defendants is in bankruptcy. The issue in litigation is the defendants' liability for reclamation. Accord- ingly, the defendants' unclean hands defense is inapplicable. See Rhine v. Terry, supra. Moreover, the plaintiff takes issue with the defendants' assertion that if the liquidation plan is confirmed, there is no need for the relief requested by the plaintiff in the complaint. Even though the liquidation plan provides for funding for recla- mation of the subject mine site, such funding is not guaranteed. Rather, funding is contingent on selling the assets of the es- tate. If such sales do not occur or are insufficient, full fund- ing of the liquidation plan will not occur. Thus, contrary to the defendants' assertion, confirmation of the liquidation plan -2-