A yearslong civil case involving the former IronWood Mill outside Dolores returned to a 22nd Judicial District courtroom Monday.
The contempt hearing, planned for two days, ended within an hour after the defense argued court documents misidentify the parcel in question.
The lawsuit against IronWood Group LLC, Mark Hartman and Kenneth Wade Bentley was brought on in 2022 by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division and the Montezuma Board of County Commissioners. What came of it was an agreement to remove massive wood piles sitting on the property, as well as a plan for mitigating fire danger in a March 15, 2023, order.
“This matter arose because IronWood Group, LLC’s mill operation resulted in a monstrosity of wood waste that was estimated to be 360 feet wide by 507 feet long; 25 feet high on the north end and 61 feet high on the south end,” wrote Michelle Hickerson, assistant attorney general representing CDPHE, in an Aug. 6 court document.
A contempt citation filed Feb. 18 alleges the company violated the March 2023 order that, among other things, required reusing or removing the large chip, slash and log pile by May of the same year.
Hickerson told the court Monday the attorney general’s office alongside county attorney Stephen Tarnowski are seeking remedial and punitive damages over the allegations of repeated noncompliance.
But before each side could present their cases on contempt, attorney Kelly McCabe, representing IronWood, Hartman and Bentley, raised a new argument. He said the court order from March 2023, the successive contempt citation, and other court orders refer to the mill’s address at 27930 Road T in Dolores, which does not contain wood waste.
“The second property is a larger tract described as 27736 Road T, Dolores, Colorado 81323 and that property is the offending property in these proceedings, which includes the wood waste piles,” McCabe wrote in an Aug. 5 motion for dismissal.
McCabe asked 22nd Judicial District Court Judge William Furse to dismiss the contempt allegations. He argued a party may be held in contempt only for refusal to do exactly what the order requires. He stated in the Aug. 5 motion that order must be clear and unequivocal, citing precedent in Colorado Supreme Court case from 1985, The People of the State of Colorado v. Steven Lockhart.
“There is not ambiguity here, it is just the wrong property,” McCabe argued in court Monday. “That was clearly a mistake.”
Hickerson argued the two properties cannot be viewed in isolation. She said the first address has been used for more than four years by both parties as it references Ironwood’s business address and the principal address of the IronWood Group.
In written arguments, Hickerson argued attorneys from all parties negotiated the March 2023 order and thereafter, entered it verbatim into record.
“In addition to having been actively involved in negotiating the language about which it now complains, defendants have long waived any such objection by years of affirmative actions that demonstrate complete clarity as to the order’s requirements,” Hickerson wrote.
Furse declined to dismiss the contempt case and said he would allow the discrepancy to be corrected in writing.
He asked the defense whether they were prepared to proceed with the contempt hearings, but the defense asked for more time.
Furse set the case for a setting and status conference Aug. 17. He said he was “taken by” McCabe’s argument that drew an analogy to a criminal allegation containing incorrect identifying information in a written complaint.
He said, however, he wasn’t making a judgment now but thought it was “a bit of a stretch to say the defendants didn’t know” because of different addresses.
Furse said he wants to see the contempt hearing resolved because the community needs resolution.
“This has been going on for too long,” Furse said.
awatson@the-journal.com
