HomeMy WebLinkAbout990041.tiff •
WELD COUNTY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CediAtccH cRc
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLOFith9yAN 25 AM 9, I7
Civil Action No. 97-D-2469 CLERK
TO THE BOARD
ASPHALT PAVING CO., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
FREDERICK WATTENBERG, also known as FRED WATTENBERG; THOMAS
GILHEANY; THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; WATTENBERG IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.; X 0
EXPLORATION, INC.; K. N. FRONT RANGE GATHERING COMPANY; THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD; FREDERICK
WATTENBERG, JR.; FRITZ WATTENBERG; WILLIAM WATTENBERG; JULIUS
WATTENBERG; CHRISTIAN WATTENBERG; BEVERLY VAN OEVEREN; HAZEL
COLLINS; EUGENE HENMAN; MARGENE HALL; MARIE WATTENBERG; HENRY
WATTENBERG; FLORENCE NELSON; LOUISE WATTENBERG; JAMES
WATTENBERG; FLORENCE CONTER; FRED WATTENBERG; ROBERT
WATTENBERG; MARY LEDFORD; DONALD PAUL WATTENBERG; HELEN LEWIS;
EDWARD PERRY; GENE PERRY; E. L. WATTENBERG; RANDY WATTENBERG;
JOHN WATTENBERG; ANNA WATTENBERG; AEON ENERGY CO.; ROCKY H.
WATTENBERG; HELEN AGNES COLBERT; DENVER PACIFIC RAILROAD AND
TELEGRAPH CO.; PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO; DONNA
ROUTZEN; MARTIN GEORGE SCHMIDT; PANHANDLE EASTER PIPELINE
COMPANY; BRIGHTON DITCH CO.; AND ALL UNKNOWN PERSONS WHO CLAIM
ANY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION,
Defendants.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS K. N. FRONT RANGE GATHERING COMPANY AND
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE COMPANY
Defendants, K. N. Front Range Gathering Company and Panhandle Eastern
Pipeline Company ("Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, King Minnig Clexton
& Feola, LLC, hereby answer the Complaint of Asphalt Paving Co., as follows:
GENERAL STATEMENT
NNW Front Renge\Fleedings\FedAnswer.nod
/1 ml,�j?/116 990041
Gyp"`" llnk/
This Answer is identical to the one filed with Weld County District Court on or
about November 19, 1997, in Case No. 97 CV 632. It has recently come to the
undersigned's attention that this document was not transferred with the other pleadings,
motions and papers when this case was removed to United States District Court on
November 21, 1997.
FIRST DEFENSE
As to the numbered allegations in the Complaint, Defendants respond as follows:
1. To the extent that Paragraph 1 of the Complaint contains any factual
allegations, Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and knowledge
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted therein and therefore deny the
same.
2. To the extent that Paragraph 2 of the Complaint contains any factual
allegations, Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and knowledge
to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations asserted therein and therefore deny the
same.
3. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 3 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same.
4. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 4 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same.
5. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 5 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same.
6. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 6 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same.
7. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 7 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same.
8. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 8 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same.
H1104 Front Ranpe'Pleadng*eaAnswer.ws 2
99o04//
9. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 9 of the
Complaint and therefore deny the same.
10. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 10 of
the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
11. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 11 of
the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
12. Admit and aver that all right, title and interest of Defendant K. N. Front
Range Gathering Company in the property at issue, as conveyed by the referenced
document, is still in full force and effect.
13. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 13 of
the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
14. Admit and aver that all right, title and interest of Defendant Panhandle
Easter Pipeline Company in the property at issue, as conveyed by the referenced
document, is still in full force and effect.
15. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 15 of
the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
16. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 16 of
the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
17. Defendants state that they are without sufficient information and
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in Paragraph 17 of
the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
18. Defendants deny the allegations made in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint
as to their right, title and interest in the property at issue.
All allegations not expressly admitted by reference are hereby denied.
H:U(N Front Ranpe(PIeadInp61FedMswer.wptl 3
SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claim is barred under the applicable statute of limitations.
THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and laches.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claim is barred under the doctrine of adverse possession.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claim, if any, is subject to all right, title and interest of the Defendants in
the property at issue.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court dismiss the Complaint of Asphalt
Paving Co. as against the Defendants, quiet title as to all right, title and interest of the
Defendants in the property at issue, and grant the Defendants all other relief the Court
deems just and proper.
Dated: January 22, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
KING MINNIG CLEXTON & FEOLA, LLC
By:
Max A. innig, Jr., #16970
Attorne for Defendants K. nt
Range Gathering Company and
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company
633 - 17'h Street, Suite 1970
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 298-9878
H*N Front RangotPloactIngsTedAnswer.wpd 4
WOOV/
•
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I served the foregoing Answer of
Defendants K. N. Fr nt Range Gathering Company and Panhandle Eastern Pipeline
Company, thistly of January, 1999, by depositing a true copy thereof in the U.S.
Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:
Wm. H. Southard, Esq. Board of County Commissioners
1025 9t Avenue, Suite 309 P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631 Greeley, CO 80632
Edward Imatani, Esq. Hazel Collins
Barbara S. Banks, Esq. P.O. Box 753
Banks & Imatani, P.C. Silver Springs, CO 80751
225 Union Blvd., Suite 310
Lakewood, CO 80228 Eugene Henman
1120 Alderson Ave.
Ron Klinefelter, Esq. Billings, MT 59102
Western Area Power Admin.
U.S. Dept. of Energy Helen Lewis
P.O. Box 3402 14390 E. Marina Dr., #606
Golden, CO 80401 Aurora, CO 80014
Fred Wattenberg Edward Perry
2163 U-75 Road 2747 S. Kilhei Rd., Bldg 5
Cederedge, CO 81413 Kihei, Maui, HI 96753
Brad W. Schacht, Esq. Gene Perry
Often, Johnson, et al. 87 Swan Ave.
950 - 17th St., #1600 Worchester, MA 01602
Denver, CO 80202
Robert D. Clark, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
1961 Stout St., Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80294
/IL/
H:UM Front RerpePleaolnpstFedMswer.wpd 5
•
99ooy�
Hello