Although
there is no “typical” agricultural dispute, most such disagreements
relate to rights in land or in water resources.
In some cases there is just an honest difference of opinion; in
many cases, the conflict is due to the fact that a new owner is not
familiar with either Colorado law, or local agriculture practices.
Most of such cases “settle,” well before there is a trial, and they
do so for a variety of reasons. Each
party has made an investment in property.
Each party recognizes that there is a potential not only for
gain, but also a potential for loss.
And, it quickly becomes apparent to a party who has hired an
attorney that there will be considerable financial expense involved,
before a reasoned outcome can be obtained from the Court.
There are a number of options to be explored, before a case is
presented, and entrusted, to a judge for a determination.
First, and most direct, is for the parties to talk to each other. If the parties are not knowledgeable about Colorado law or
practices, they may need to consult with an attorney or two.
In many cases, with a little basic education and understanding, a
festering dispute can be resolved.
An attorney can assist with advice about Colorado law, and where
appropriate, can assist in reducing an agreement to writing.
Second, there are avenues for assisted resolution.
Routt County has adopted a “right to farm” resolution and
this can provide mediation assistance for parties who have disputes.
Mediation generally involves a disinterested third-party, who
tries to help the parties reach a resolution that is acceptable to those
involved. In some
circumstances, there are mediators available at no charge; otherwise,
there are mediation services that can be hired to assist the parties in
reaching a resolution. The
bottom line here is that both of the parties must agree to a settlement,
before it can be completed.
An alternative to mediation is arbitration.
In this case too, the parties choose a disinterested third-party
to assist. However, in
arbitration, the parties empower the arbitrator to collect facts, to
hear evidence, and to make a decision.
The parties agree that they will live with whatever decision the
arbitrator reaches – just as if the arbitrator were a judge.
Sometimes, due to circumstances, there is just no choice for a party and
a lawsuit is filed. Although
the filing and service of a lawsuit commences formal legal proceedings,
there is still the opportunity for settlement at almost any point in the
proceedings. In most cases,
the judge will not schedule a case for trial, until there has been a
serious, formal effort to mediate the dispute.
In my experience, most agriculture-dispute cases that start with a
preliminary Court hearing, seeking injunctive relief for trespass, or
for access rights, or for maintaining a fence boundary, result in a
fairly quick settlement. When
the parties on both sides evaluate the cost, the effort, the stress, and
the ongoing emotional commitment that are involved in such dispute, most
can be settled. Some need a
push or some creativity from a mediator, but the result is a settlement.
Ultimately, the reason that any of these dispute-resolving methods work
is because the Court is available as a last resort.
A neighbor, who will not respond to telephone calls, letters, or
even a knock on the door, can be served with a lawsuit and taken to
Court. If an agreement has
been reached, by consent of the parties, the agreement can be enforced
by the Court. It is even
easier to enforce the agreement, if it is the decision of an arbitrator
or of the Court itself.
Even if the Court is not used directly to assist with the resolution of
a dispute, its presence in the county seat and its availability to rule
on legal claims, provides a protection and a benefit to the agricultural
property owner.
If you have a topic you would like to see
addressed in a future community agriculture column, or if you would like
to write a column, please contact Rich Tremaine at 879-5003.
