Opinion ID: 2204353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Respondent Files a Protest to the SCR HOA's Petition, 93CW213

Text: The SCR HOA attempted to obtain approval of the augmentation plan for water use as provided in Judge Lass' order in 99CV277. On June 30, 2003, Respondent filed a protest against the SCR HOA's petition in water court, 93CW213. On August 5, 2004, the Honorable Thomas Ossola entered an order cautioning Respondent that he would not allow her to litigate issues resolved in 99CV277, including the SCR HOA's authority to act on behalf of its members. Judge Ossola also cautioned Respondent that he would sanction her if she persisted in litigating matters that had already been resolved in 99CV277. During the water court proceedings, Respondent repeatedly attempted to challenge Judge Lass' jurisdiction to rule on water rights issues in 99CV277 and her client's water rights, despite Judge Ossola's warnings not to do so. [32] In an order dated September 13, 2005, Judge Ossola denied Respondents second motion for summary judgment. In this order, Judge Ossola specifically stated, In July, 2004 this court found that the judgment in Summit County District Court (Judge Lass' order in 99CV277) acts as a bar to issues concerning the authority of the association's board of directors, the validity of the agreement and the addendum and ownership of the rights in 80CW504. [33] Because Respondent continued to argue these resolved issues at trial in these matters, Judge Ossola entered an order on November 4, 2004, at the conclusion of 93CW213, sanctioning Respondent and her clients for stubbornly litigating issues precluded by Judge Lass' order in 99CV277.