Preview
Superb! Baud bf Gamma
John Jeffery Carter — SBN 079857
F
County of Butts
329 Flume Street |
P. 0. Box 3606 6/4/2020 L
Chico, CA 95927-3606
Telephone: (530) 342-6196
E
Facsimile: (530) 342-6195 Ki rFa m D
y
Attorney for Defendants Randall C. Meline and
Joan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard
Meline and Charlene M. Meline Irrevocable
Trust dated December 30, 1992.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
STEPHEN MELINE, IV, ) Case No.: 1271 80B
ROBERT MELINE, et al., )
ll ) SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Plaintiffs, ) 0F DEFENDANT THE EDWARD RICHARD
12 ) MELINE AND CHARLENE M. MELINE
vs. ) IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER
l3 RANDALL C. MELINE and ) 30, 1992.
JOAN STONER, Co-Trustees, et al., )
l4
) Date: June 10, 2020
15 ) Time: 1:30 p.m.
Defendants. ) Dept: 10
) Trial Date: July 27, 2020
) (Estimated duration — eight days)
17 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: 10
l8
19
20
Randall C. Meline and Joan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard Meline and Charlene M. Meline
21
Irrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992 (the “Meline Trust”) hereby submit the following statement for the
22
Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled herein on June 10, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.:
23
Statement of Case
24
25 The parties to this action are four branches of the same family. The action involves the partition of what
26 is known as the Range property in which each of the branches owns collectively a .25 interest, though in varying.
27 of the
percentages among the parties comprising each branch. In fact,there presently are 11 separate owners
28
Range property with ownership interests ranging om a .05 interest to a .25 interest in the property.
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
The Range consists of approximately 4,500 acres of grazing and recreational property located
northeasterly of Chico and extending from Stilson Canyon to Butte Creek Canyon. But for Stilson Canyon,
access to which is via Stilson Canyon Road, a public road, access to the vast majority of the Range property i
both extremely limited and problematic, being via two separate, rugged Jeep trails over separately owned
property immediately adjoining the Range property to the northwest in Butte Creek Canyon (“Valley’s Edge”).
The legal status of these accesses is uncertain.
The action previously had been referred to the Honorable Noel H. Watkins, Judge (Ret’d) as referee and
three days of trial in the action were conducted on February 21 through February 23, 2017, inclusive. During the
10 three days of trial, two witnesses testied interspersed between breaks in which counsel pursued settlement:
ll negotiations. On the third day of trial settlement was reached and was entered upon the record of the trial.
12
However, the settlement was premised upon a condition precedent, namely, two separate, express easements in
13
recordable form being secured by counsel for Plaintiffs over Valley’s Edge. Such easements have not been
l4
secured and thus the condition precedent to the settlement has not been satised, rendering the settlement null
15
and void, as all counsel herein agree.
l6
l7
Argument
Plaintiffs have long lusted over and seek to obtain for their collective .25 interest in the Range the pearl
l8
19 of the oyster that is the Range, Stilson Canyon. Their avarice in so doing is not surprising; Stilson Canyon is the
20 only part of the Range that is, among other things, accessible by a public road, relatively at, has Little Chico
2] Creek rurming through it, and is immediately adjacent to the high end, if not luxurious, homes of the immediately
22
adjoining neighborhood known as Stilson Canyon. Though re-zoning of the range was done a few years ago,*
23
there can be no doubt that once demand for such homes crests, Stilson Canyon will be ripe for re-zone and
24
development, not unlike Valley’s Edge and its planned development.
25
*Meline Trust is informed and believes that prior to the re-zouing of Stilson Canyon, Butte County sent notices advising of
26 the possibility of such and of public hearings thereon to all affected landowners at the mailing addresses therefor maintained
by its Assessor or Tax Collector. Such address for the Range then was that of Plaintiffs. If mailed and received by Plaintiffs,
27 they did not provide a copy of such to the Meline Trust, or, the Meline Trust is informed, to any of the other defendants.
28
SEITLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Plaintiffs thus propose a partition by which they receive the Stilson Canyon portion of the Range fol
their collective .25 interest in the Range, and that the remaining defendants collectively take the rest of the Range
for their .75 interest therein.
Simply put, such a partition in kind of the Range, would be unfair and inequitable. It would result in
Plaintiffs getting collectively for their one-quarter interest the pearl, namely, Stilson Canyon, with defendants
collectively getting the oyster’s shell of the remainder of the Range. As noted, the oyster shell is accessible only
over two Jeep trails over adjacent land of uncertain legal status. It is strictly foothill seasonal grazing land
unsuited for anything other than livestock grazing and hunting. Any development of it for residential purposes
10 would be cost prohibitive. And any streams on it are ephemeral.
ll Further, Plaintiffs ignore that among the defendants owning collectively a .75 interest in the Range, there
12
are seven owners, each of whom in a partition in kind would be entitled to his, her or its equitable and
l3
proportionate share in the whole. Each of ve of them owns a .05 interest in the Range, while each of the othen
14
two owns a .25 interest.Any partition in kind of the Range, then, must divide the Range equitably among all
15
owners per their respective percentage ownership interests. Plaintiffs would have the Court ignore this, and
l6
instead be forced to likely another separate partition between defendants to divide, or to be forced to sell, them
l7
18 jointly owned remainder of the Range.
l9 The Meline Trust, and, it believes, the other defendants do not want to sell the Range. However, they do
20 not believe the Range can be divided in kind by partition such that each owner receives an equitable,
21
proportionate price of the Range equal to his, her, or its ownership interest therein. Thus, partition of the Range
22
can only be done by sale.
23
Accordingly, the matter must proceed to trial,and such must be de novo, particularly in light of the
24
passage of time since the initial trial began and the fact that only two of many witnesses to be called testied.
25
Moreover, conditions have occurred in the intervening time no doubt affecting use and value of the Range
26
property, not the least of which is the Camp Fire. The Court thus should begin trial anew and hear arguments oi
27
counsel and testimony of all witnesses in order to determine whether the Range is to be partitioned in kind, as the
28
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Plaintiffs maintain, or by sale, as the defendants maintain.
Respectfully submitted,
June 4, 2020
John
{22
ffery Carter, Att 'ey for Defendants,
Ran 1C. Meline an oan Stoner, Co-Trustees
of the Edward Richard Meline and Charlene M.
Meline Irrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992
10
11
12
l3
l4
15
16
l7
18
l9
20
.21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE
Meline v. Meline, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180 B
I am a citizen of the United States and am a resident of the County of Butte. I am over the age of 18
years and not a paity to the within action; my business address is CARTER LAW OFFICE, 329 Flume
Street, Chico, California 95928.
On this date, I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 0F DEFENDANT THE EDWARD
RICHARD MELINE AND CHARLENE M. MELINE IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED
DECEMBER 30, 1992.
On the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the
parties/counsel, addressed as follows:
Nels A. Christensen Aaron W. Moore
Christensen & Schwarz, LLP Moore & Bogener, Inc.
1 Governors Lane 1600 West Street
10
Chico, CA 95926 Redding, CA 96001
11
Charleton S. Pearse
12 Lenahan, Lee, Slater, Pearse & Majernik, LLP
2542 River Plaza Drive
13 Sacramento, CA 95833
14
The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
15
16
X U.S. Postal Service (placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the
designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this ofce’s practice, whereby the
mail is deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Chico, California after the close of the
17
day’s business).
18
Federal Express
19
Express Mail
20
Personal Service
21
Facsimile
22
23
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoingls true and correct and that this document1s
executed at Chico, California on June 4, 2020.
24
25
NICO HEINDELL
v
26
27
28
Preview
Superb! Baud bf Gamma John Jeffery Carter — SBN 079857 F County of Butts 329 Flume Street | P. 0. Box 3606 6/4/2020 L Chico, CA 95927-3606 Telephone: (530) 342-6196 E Facsimile: (530) 342-6195 Ki rFa m D y Attorney for Defendants Randall C. Meline and Joan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard Meline and Charlene M. Meline Irrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 STEPHEN MELINE, IV, ) Case No.: 1271 80B ROBERT MELINE, et al., ) ll ) SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Plaintiffs, ) 0F DEFENDANT THE EDWARD RICHARD 12 ) MELINE AND CHARLENE M. MELINE vs. ) IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER l3 RANDALL C. MELINE and ) 30, 1992. JOAN STONER, Co-Trustees, et al., ) l4 ) Date: June 10, 2020 15 ) Time: 1:30 p.m. Defendants. ) Dept: 10 ) Trial Date: July 27, 2020 ) (Estimated duration — eight days) 17 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: 10 l8 19 20 Randall C. Meline and Joan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard Meline and Charlene M. Meline 21 Irrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992 (the “Meline Trust”) hereby submit the following statement for the 22 Mandatory Settlement Conference scheduled herein on June 10, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.: 23 Statement of Case 24 25 The parties to this action are four branches of the same family. The action involves the partition of what 26 is known as the Range property in which each of the branches owns collectively a .25 interest, though in varying. 27 of the percentages among the parties comprising each branch. In fact,there presently are 11 separate owners 28 Range property with ownership interests ranging om a .05 interest to a .25 interest in the property. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT The Range consists of approximately 4,500 acres of grazing and recreational property located northeasterly of Chico and extending from Stilson Canyon to Butte Creek Canyon. But for Stilson Canyon, access to which is via Stilson Canyon Road, a public road, access to the vast majority of the Range property i both extremely limited and problematic, being via two separate, rugged Jeep trails over separately owned property immediately adjoining the Range property to the northwest in Butte Creek Canyon (“Valley’s Edge”). The legal status of these accesses is uncertain. The action previously had been referred to the Honorable Noel H. Watkins, Judge (Ret’d) as referee and three days of trial in the action were conducted on February 21 through February 23, 2017, inclusive. During the 10 three days of trial, two witnesses testied interspersed between breaks in which counsel pursued settlement: ll negotiations. On the third day of trial settlement was reached and was entered upon the record of the trial. 12 However, the settlement was premised upon a condition precedent, namely, two separate, express easements in 13 recordable form being secured by counsel for Plaintiffs over Valley’s Edge. Such easements have not been l4 secured and thus the condition precedent to the settlement has not been satised, rendering the settlement null 15 and void, as all counsel herein agree. l6 l7 Argument Plaintiffs have long lusted over and seek to obtain for their collective .25 interest in the Range the pearl l8 19 of the oyster that is the Range, Stilson Canyon. Their avarice in so doing is not surprising; Stilson Canyon is the 20 only part of the Range that is, among other things, accessible by a public road, relatively at, has Little Chico 2] Creek rurming through it, and is immediately adjacent to the high end, if not luxurious, homes of the immediately 22 adjoining neighborhood known as Stilson Canyon. Though re-zoning of the range was done a few years ago,* 23 there can be no doubt that once demand for such homes crests, Stilson Canyon will be ripe for re-zone and 24 development, not unlike Valley’s Edge and its planned development. 25 *Meline Trust is informed and believes that prior to the re-zouing of Stilson Canyon, Butte County sent notices advising of 26 the possibility of such and of public hearings thereon to all affected landowners at the mailing addresses therefor maintained by its Assessor or Tax Collector. Such address for the Range then was that of Plaintiffs. If mailed and received by Plaintiffs, 27 they did not provide a copy of such to the Meline Trust, or, the Meline Trust is informed, to any of the other defendants. 28 SEITLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Plaintiffs thus propose a partition by which they receive the Stilson Canyon portion of the Range fol their collective .25 interest in the Range, and that the remaining defendants collectively take the rest of the Range for their .75 interest therein. Simply put, such a partition in kind of the Range, would be unfair and inequitable. It would result in Plaintiffs getting collectively for their one-quarter interest the pearl, namely, Stilson Canyon, with defendants collectively getting the oyster’s shell of the remainder of the Range. As noted, the oyster shell is accessible only over two Jeep trails over adjacent land of uncertain legal status. It is strictly foothill seasonal grazing land unsuited for anything other than livestock grazing and hunting. Any development of it for residential purposes 10 would be cost prohibitive. And any streams on it are ephemeral. ll Further, Plaintiffs ignore that among the defendants owning collectively a .75 interest in the Range, there 12 are seven owners, each of whom in a partition in kind would be entitled to his, her or its equitable and l3 proportionate share in the whole. Each of ve of them owns a .05 interest in the Range, while each of the othen 14 two owns a .25 interest.Any partition in kind of the Range, then, must divide the Range equitably among all 15 owners per their respective percentage ownership interests. Plaintiffs would have the Court ignore this, and l6 instead be forced to likely another separate partition between defendants to divide, or to be forced to sell, them l7 18 jointly owned remainder of the Range. l9 The Meline Trust, and, it believes, the other defendants do not want to sell the Range. However, they do 20 not believe the Range can be divided in kind by partition such that each owner receives an equitable, 21 proportionate price of the Range equal to his, her, or its ownership interest therein. Thus, partition of the Range 22 can only be done by sale. 23 Accordingly, the matter must proceed to trial,and such must be de novo, particularly in light of the 24 passage of time since the initial trial began and the fact that only two of many witnesses to be called testied. 25 Moreover, conditions have occurred in the intervening time no doubt affecting use and value of the Range 26 property, not the least of which is the Camp Fire. The Court thus should begin trial anew and hear arguments oi 27 counsel and testimony of all witnesses in order to determine whether the Range is to be partitioned in kind, as the 28 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Plaintiffs maintain, or by sale, as the defendants maintain. Respectfully submitted, June 4, 2020 John {22 ffery Carter, Att 'ey for Defendants, Ran 1C. Meline an oan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard Meline and Charlene M. Meline Irrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 .21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT PROOF OF SERVICE Meline v. Meline, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case No. 127180 B I am a citizen of the United States and am a resident of the County of Butte. I am over the age of 18 years and not a paity to the within action; my business address is CARTER LAW OFFICE, 329 Flume Street, Chico, California 95928. On this date, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 0F DEFENDANT THE EDWARD RICHARD MELINE AND CHARLENE M. MELINE IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 30, 1992. On the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows: Nels A. Christensen Aaron W. Moore Christensen & Schwarz, LLP Moore & Bogener, Inc. 1 Governors Lane 1600 West Street 10 Chico, CA 95926 Redding, CA 96001 11 Charleton S. Pearse 12 Lenahan, Lee, Slater, Pearse & Majernik, LLP 2542 River Plaza Drive 13 Sacramento, CA 95833 14 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected: 15 16 X U.S. Postal Service (placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this ofce’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Chico, California after the close of the 17 day’s business). 18 Federal Express 19 Express Mail 20 Personal Service 21 Facsimile 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoingls true and correct and that this document1s executed at Chico, California on June 4, 2020. 24 25 NICO HEINDELL v 26 27 28