Park City/Talisker-Vail Lawsuit

[StevePluvia]

We don't know that the lawyers didn't recommend that PCMR make a settlement. Maybe Cummings is such an egotist that he refused to settle and wanted them to fight to the death.

Very true. However, hard as it is to conceive that an attorney would turn money away rather than start a fight they couldn't win, good litigators will do just that. Not only did PCMR counsel take the money, then get their asses kicked out with the eviction, they continue to make laughable arguments -- like suggesting the upper Vail property should be valued as farmland or a US Forrest property lease.

Even if the base property is never reunited, the upper property is developed for skiing, used by the US Ski & Snowboard Team and can be connected to two other world class resorts (Canyons, Deer Valley). Water will not be a problem -- the state will take away Cummings unused water and re-issue to Vail.

 

[AdironRider]

So do you work for Vail?

You also don't understand water rights.

 

[StevePluvia]

So do you work for Vail?

You also don't understand water rights.

No I don't work for Vail and I don't like the Canyons soft crap snow. However I have litigated water rights in Utah. Have you?

 

[AdironRider]

Bullshit you have.

If the state tried to take the water rights away this case will remain in limbo for the better part of a decade. No way no how that is the route this goes.

 

[StevePluvia]

"Bullshit you have. If the state tried to take the water rights away this case will remain in limbo for the better part of a decade. No way no how that is the route this goes. "

To be clear, I have litigated water rights in Utah and never lost a case. That's right dipshit from way back east, I bat 1000 litigating Utah water rights.

In Utah you cannot keep water rights you cannot prove beneficial use. In the instant case, PMCR has water rights for snow-making on property they no longer own or control. They cannot therefore show beneficial use and they will automatically lose that water pursuant to Utah law.

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/

 

[thetrailboss]

Had a friend today that is so fed up with this that he hopes that the State will seize the PCMR land per eminent domain.

 

[AdironRider]

Had a friend today that is so fed up with this that he hopes that the State will seize the PCMR land per eminent domain.

And give it to a foreign owned entity? Yeah that will go over well.

 

[AdironRider]

No I don't work for Vail and I don't like the Canyons soft crap snow. However I have litigated water rights in Utah. Have you?

Since you just seem to be on repeat, you also presumably know that it takes 7 years of non use before a declaration to rescind can even be issued, but that also Powdr can apply for an application for non-use of water due to legal issues just like this. So at best, 8 years from now, its a slim possibility, with like 10 things that have to break just so.

Please, quit posturing and saying stupid things. You give lawyers a bad name.

 

[mbedle]

No I don't work for Vail and I don't like the Canyons soft crap snow. However I have litigated water rights in Utah. Have you?

Christ Steve, why didn't you just tell us you were a lawyer. I never would have questioned your insightfulness and non-resentment towards cumming's business practices or as you so graciously put it "Fu&^ing*%$#hole, pathetic and assclowns". My bad!

 

[AdironRider]

"Bullshit you have. If the state tried to take the water rights away this case will remain in limbo for the better part of a decade. No way no how that is the route this goes. "

To be clear, I have litigated water rights in Utah and never lost a case. That's right dipshit from way back east, I bat 1000 litigating Utah water rights.

In Utah you cannot keep water rights you cannot prove beneficial use. In the instant case, PMCR has water rights for snow-making on property they no longer own or control. They cannot therefore show beneficial use and they will automatically lose that water pursuant to Utah law.

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/

You conveniently left out the necessary details I mentioned above. Very lawyer like, I'm sure Powdr would love you on their team.

I don't live back East either.

 

[StevePluvia]

Since you just seem to be on repeat, you also presumably know that it takes 7 years of non use before a declaration to rescind can even be issued, but that also Powdr can apply for an application for non-use of water due to legal issues just like this. So at best, 8 years from now, its a slim possibility, with like 10 things that have to break just so.

Please, quit posturing and saying stupid things. You give lawyers a bad name.

Phhht -- please explain how PCMR could claim a legal action -- they've been evicted from land that is requisite for them to maintain their claim to the water and their related claims have been dismissed. While not final in all respects, the judgement with respect to any claim by PMCR to the upper Vail property is pretty much final -- which bars any future claim. Thus they can't claim operation of legal action.

Here's the application language:

State Statute offers the following justifications that are considered reasonable for NONUSE of a water right:

C. operation of legal proceedings;

Res judicata or res iudicata , also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and may refer to two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".

In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.



resjudicata

 

[thetrailboss]

And give it to a foreign owned entity? Yeah that will go over well.

No his point was that the state take it to shut both parties up.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

"no longer subject to appeal" Well, you know that is gonna happen if they lose.. and even if they do... they just pump water and make snow on the property they still own. It'll get used...

 

[HowieT2]

I don't have a horse in this game, but this seems to be a situation where everyone knows they have to make a deal yet neither party will do what it takes. They don't want to flinch. Big egos involved. I'd be very worried if I were invested.

 

[StevePluvia]

"no longer subject to appeal" Well, you know that is gonna happen if they lose.. and even if they do... they just pump water and make snow on the property they still own. It'll get used...

No, that's not the way it works. You have to show beneficial use of all the water you have. When you have shown for multiple years you needed x water for x acres to make snow, arguing you need the same water to service 1/10th the property won't fly. The state will take away the water you can't show beneficial use.

"All waters in Utah are public property. A “water right” is a right to divert (remove from its natural source) and beneficially use water. "

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/

The question is -- how does Vail (if they become the operator) get water for snow-making while that legal process works out?

There's <<<intense>>> political and business pressure to keep PC open so as not to kill the local economy. I would not rule out anything -- including an act by state legislature to authorize water specific to the operators needs.

I don't think lack of water will kill the PC season, just my opinion ....

 

[Domeskier]

They rely on snowmaking in Utah? Time to scratch those guys off the list!

 

[StevePluvia]

"no longer subject to appeal" Well, you know that is gonna happen if they lose.. and even if they do... they just pump water and make snow on the property they still own. It'll get used...

You must appeal within 30 days. PCMR didn't appeal in 30 days, thus they lost the right to appeal. Later (after appeal time expired), PCMR appealed to the Utah Supreme Ct on the narrow issue of Jurisdiction -- a claim essentially that the decision was in the wrong court and that the Harris court had no authority to make the decision.

Interesting (cough) argument, considering the PCMR assclowns (1) filed the lawsuit; and (2) select the court to file in... So now their argument is -- we filed the lawsuit (in the wrong court). We lost, were evicted, our claims were dismissed, bitch slapped out of court and now, we want you to please overrule the court we filed in.... uh... and it's not because we didn't like their decision... its because we filed in the wrong court and didn't figure that out till after we got bitch slapped. yes your honor, I'm serious. No, I'm not drunk...

Wow, that's retarded. MOUNTAINS of legal precedent against this argument.

Add this to the list of reasons the PCMR legal team earned the assclown crown

 

[Highway Star]

To be clear, I have litigated water rights in Utah and never lost a case. That's right dipshit from way back east, I bat 1000 litigating Utah water rights.

Quote of the month.

 

[StevePluvia]

PCMR advertising 14/15 season tickets at last night's UofU football game... ?

Does this mean a deal is certain, or did the PCMR assclowns who forgot to renew their lease, forgot to file an appeal just forget to pull their advertising?

I spect we'll know of a settlement by evening news tonight MST....

 

[thetrailboss]

PCMR advertising 14/15 season tickets at last night's UofU football game... ?

Does this mean a deal is certain, or did the PCMR assclowns who forgot to renew their lease, forgot to file an appeal just forget to pull their advertising?

I spect we'll know of a settlement by evening news tonight MST....

They've been advertising their season passes for several months now.....

Just go to their website.