This article is the fourth in a series of in-depth stories related to the controversy surrounding the settlement of Quiet-Title litigation between the County of San Bernardino Flood Control District, County of San Bernardino, and Colonies Partners, L.P.
In this segment, we make available to you the 2005 “Unpublished” Opinion by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two, Presiding Justice Ramirez, Associate Justices Gaut (Author) and Hollenhorst.
To download the opinion in PDF format click: 2005 Unpublished Opinion by California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two
In its decision, the appellate court “reversed with instructions” the ruling by Superior Court Judge Peter Norell and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
The appellate court found that easements affecting the Colonies property could only be terminated by resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
The appellate court further determined the following.
*The easements are limited to the extent of their original grants.
*The appellate court rejected Flood Control District Arguments that the easements have been expanded by sand and gravel quarries over the years to include a much greater use than was originally permitted.
*That leases and permits submitted as evidence by the Flood Control District do not expand the scope of the easements.
*The evidence is uncontradicted that the original “Basin No. 6″ could not have accommodated the amount of water to be received from the newly constructed 20th Street storm drain. Instead new “Basin A” expands from about 31 surface acres to about 61 surface acres the amount of property originally used by “Basin No. 6″.
*The burden on Colonies property was more significant than slight.
*”Basin A” exceeds the original grant of the “1933″ easement.
*There was no common-law abandonment of the District’s flood-control easements.
*The trial court must decide the full scope of the “1933″ and “1939″ easements and whether “Basin A” is allowed under them.
*The post-judgment completion of “Basin A” (by Colonies) may have bearing on the trial courts ultimate interpretation of the easements and on an analysis of the respective liabilities of the parties.
The matter was assigned for re-trial to Christopher Warner, Supervising Judge of the Superior Court – Civil Division.
In the next story in this series the Intended Statement of Decision by Judge Warner will be presented.
You can’t download that opinion like it says you can!
The PDF file link has been repaired.
I apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank-You Administrator!
WHAT a minute. Dear Mr. R. We have a question for you and your crackpot investigators. If Burum had even a question as to his case going south at any given point, could he not have been granted a change in venue? We have requested this in the past on cases and then been granted the change. The judges were of the old guard under the previous “county” control, just prior to this case. Then switched over to the state. It was within a time frame that Burum could have said “prejudice” involved, please change venue to Riverside or elsewhere. If he never asked for this, he must have felt confident that in the end he would be paid for what he deserve under the law. And taking into consideration, what the liability was to the county. Your investigators have interviewed the Chiefs. You know your case goes nowhere, with moneys and property being offered to settle this case. Then the offer was the money, way less than anticipated. Have you asked your BOS friend about what her statements were before the settlement? Then asked the question again and again until you get the actual true answer? What your looking for is not there, period. You had better hope one of the chiefs doesn’t come clean with the public, on your interviews. You better hope the other ones testimony is not all hearsay also. And not talking about the yellow bird guy. The Board has full discretion to do what they did, no matter what your theory is. Have you ever heard, “you can’t get there from here”? Your on the north face of K2, out of air and your sherpas are running back down the mountain. Get the feeling? Remember W not finding the WMD’s? Even if they were ever there, they were never found. Several months ago you were told that hunting season was way over. Too bad these were not ducks involved! Fish and game doesn’t mess around.
One more question. Have you done a reality check on your own people, where they stand, their dedication to this cause, there conversation off the record with family and friends?
We would like Admin and others to comment on this one.
Just want to point out a few things to clarify who Bob Randsdell is…he is a retired Supervising Investigator that came out of retirement to work part time on contract with the PIU. He retired from Fish and Game before working for the SBSO. He was lazy there as well as a lazy Supervisor for D.A. While seemingly a very nice man by all accounts, doesnt have a backbone to stand up for what is right in front of his face. If he is Publius, then this must be his alter ego.
Way more questions here than answers.
Ransdale is a very angry bitter man. If the DA’s Office has overpent its budget they should start cutting back with his contract. The lawyers know him as lazy and arrogant. He obviously has a higher opinion of himself then we do.
A Question for Insider or Esquire, does a Bob Terrill ring a bell with either of you?
Do you know if he ever worked for the DA’s office?? Thanks.
name does not ring a bell and I have been in the department quite some time.
Thank you Insider.
I know Bob and no he has never worked for the DA.
Thanks NutnBolt.
It seems that after a long read that the Court of Appeal told the County you still have your 75 year old easements but they are what they are and by the way you better live up to the terms of them if you are trying to use them. Unfortunately for us residents, that post construction comment regarding how the basin was built was the death knell for the County. Since the county forced the Colonies to build it in order for them to get a building permit for their shopping center, they abused or surcharged their easement rights and got caught. Question that I don’t understand is why is the investigation not about legal malpractice against the county’s attorneys for not settling this before trial. The ruling from the Court of Appeal is pretty easy to understand even for a second year law student, much less $600 per hour litigators.The obvious answer is the lawyers took advantage of the residents of San Bernardino County by not only feeding at the public trough but giving advice to fight and representing that they would win. That lie cost 102 million.
How much did the county pay for all of this legal advice? It looks like somebody may have made a pile on this.