Laserfiche WebLink
O'HAYRE, DAWSON be NORRIS, P.C. <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />DIRECT (970) 64 I -3326 ExT.3 <br />EMAIL: MDAWSON�GUC LAW.COM <br />MICHAEL C. DAWSON <br />Alan Hassler <br />The Hassler Law Firm, P.C. <br />2829 North Ave Ste 205 <br />P.O. Box 40386 <br />Grand Junction Co 40386 <br />WWW.GUCLAW.COM <br />April 18, 2013 <br />Re: Intermountain Transport, LLC /Terror Creek, LLC <br />Load Out & Access Issues <br />Dear Mr. Hassler: <br />issues again. <br />1 20 N. TAYLOR STREET <br />P.O. Box 1 79 <br />GUNNISON, CO 81 230 <br />TELEPHONE (970) 64 1-3326 <br />FACSIMILE (970) 641-3094 <br />Via email only <br />17,044 <br />Thank you for your response. We have forwarded it to our client and discussed the <br />As we discussed at the MRLB meeting, we respectfully disagree with your conclusions <br />and position. The proposals by Terror Creek regarding a separate lock on the existing gate, or other <br />offers to resolve your client's concerns on access are not unreasonable burdens on your client's limited <br />access rights and are necessary given the safety concerns on the slope of the former gate location. This <br />gate is unlocked and open during normal business hours, and your client has been offered its own <br />separate lock or a key to the lock so that it can utilize the access when it deems necessary when the gate <br />is not open. Given the historic use of the easement, location of the access and road, the gate's presence <br />in its current location for over 3 years, and the language of the access right itself, we believe this is a <br />reasonable and cost effective solution for all parties. We further believe a reviewing court would agree <br />with this conclusion when presented with all the facts and circumstances under the Telluray analysis. <br />Given that a reasonable and no -cost solution has been offered to your client, it does not make economic <br />sense to litigate this easement and the reasonableness of the existing gate. <br />My client would also reiterate its additional offer to replace the gate with an electric gate <br />at its sole cost & expense in the current location, and to agree to remove and relocate this new gate when <br />and if an access road (to county standards) is constructed within the easement. If this is acceptable, we <br />would prepare an easement from Terror Creek to the Trust outlining the new terms of the access <br />easement, and requiring Terror Creek to maintain and replace the gate under the terms outlined above <br />going forward. If a new, non - exclusive appurtenant easement was in place, this would also provide your <br />client better certainty about the scope, allowable uses, and location of its access right. This is our best <br />and final offer to resolve your client's concerns. <br />Please let me know any questions or clarifications you have on this letter. <br />MCD <br />cc: Terror Creek, LLC <br />