Park City Wins a Victory in On-going Dispute With Talisker

1948 view(s)

Publish Date

09/19/2013

SAM Magazine--Park City, Utah, September 19, 2013--Yesterday, a district county judge in Summit County, Utah, ruled that Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) can ammend its complaint against Talisker Land Holdings LLC and argue that it had "first right of refusal" to buy the terrain that Talisker owns and leases to PCMR. The terrain does not include PCMR's base area, but a large part of its slopes. At issue in the long-standing lease battle between PCMR and Talisker is the fact that Talisker leased neighboring Canyons to Vail Resorts this past spring, and also turned over the management of the land under PCMR to Vail Resorts under the long-term lease arrangement. According to the Salt Lake City Tribune, PCMR attorney Alan Sullivan argued that Talisker’s agreement with Vail that allows the Colorado-based resort corporation to seek control of 3,700 acres of ski terrain adjacent to Park City violates the 1971 lease agreement between PCMR and United Park City Mines, which was purchased by Talisker.

Sullivan told the Tribune that Talisker "basically sold the land [that PCMR leases] to Vail" and that, "Vail has the right to collect rents ... and unilaterally sell the property. ... It has all the indications of ownership." Sullivan further argued that the deal should have been offered to PCMR first.

For its part, Talisker and Vail Resorts argued that the lease is null and void since PCMR missed the April 20, 2011 renewal deadline.

For more on the on-going battle, check out:
http://www.saminfo.com/news/park-city-served-eviction-notice



Comments

New claim

This is about tortious interference, and it may or may not be proven not to mention all the other legal hurdles Talisker/Vail will present. There will be depositions. PCMR still has shown no reason for their backdating is to be seen as anything but fraudulent (so far). With this new development it will take months longer to get a declaratory judgement.

... Unless the Lease is in Place

It's a matter of litigation whether or not the lease was in place.If the lease was in force the rights in the lease would have existed and maybe the purchase is in doubt. So this could be the right ruling.

Pretty simple claim

Pretty simple claim actually. "Alan Sullivan argued that Talisker’s agreement with Vail that allows the Colorado-based resort corporation to seek control of 3,700 acres of ski terrain adjacent to Park City violates the 1971 lease agreement between PCMR and United Park City Mines, which was purchased by Talisker."

Round one

Of course a district county judge is gonna rule for the home team. I don't understand how PCMR now has the right to first refusal after their lease has terminated ? When the game is over and you did not score more than the other guy usually you don't get more time on the field ?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.