On January 04, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Richard Bozner, Candyce E. Bozner As Trustees Of The Bozner Family Trust Dated December 16, 1991,
and
Does 1 Through 100,
Lilia Navarro, As Trustee Of The Navarro Trust Dated May 1, 2007,
Luis Navarro, As Trustee Of The Navarro Trust Dated May 1, 2007,
for Other Real Property Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
x,
.
ORIGINAL
5' FE® AXE
F ‘ L
gpocAuFoaNm
sUcPOEE‘OR COUTN BERNARDINO
moms N. Jacobson, smtc Bar #55 1 27 NTY 0F S
?&?IOFF/I‘CESSOF I‘lllOMAS N. JACOBSON
own ve., uitc 90
Riverside,C/\ 92507 DEC 2 7 2023
T: (051) 682-7882 ’ “ k
F: (951) 632—7884
tom@tomjacobsonlaw.com
BY
§\
“CUE'CASTRO' DE
Attorneys for Defendants. Richard KAUSKA M
And Candycc Bozncr
Omflaubu“
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO - SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
RICHARD BOZNER, CANDYCE E. ) CASE NO. CIVSB 2200084
BOZNER as TRUSTEES OF THE BOZNER )
FAMILY TRYUST DATED DECEMBER l6, ) DECLARATION 0F RICHARD
1991, ) BOZNER
)
'
Pl t'ffs ,
13w.
.
game“
I
98,9034
g
am
LUIS NAVARRO, LILIA NAVARRO AS
TRUSTEES OF THE NAVARRO TRUST
DATED MAY l. 2007, and DOES I-100,
inclusive,
rum;
)
)
)
)
W 2‘50
sal
)
Defendants. )
)
l, Richard Bozner, declare ns follows:
l. l am one of the tnlstccs of the Plaintiff Trust. If called upon to testify l would
testify as set forth herein. All of the matters set forth herein arc within my personal knowledge
and experience.
2. The 'I‘mst entered into a settlement agreement with Defendants. A copy of the
settlement aglecmcnt is attached hereto n5 Exhibit “A."
3. Despite thc terms of the settlement agreement, Defendants continue to fail lo
rcmodiate the matters set fonh in the settlement agreement, including the following:
a. 'l‘hcy did not complete thc work as promised within thiny (30) days.
b. Aflcr building a fence and placing n anch Drain near the property line, the surface
water from the concrete on Defendants‘ property drains over the French drain and onto our
Inlflmflmfl
- -
ll”h~IAu.MIW
mCAnm 1
DECLARATION 0F RICHARD BOZNER
l propcny. Thc French Drain is totally ineffective as lhc low point ofthc drain is m the same
2 point as where the surface water drains ovcr thc French Drain. ’l'hc
French Drain docs not
3 carry water away from the Dcfcndants’ property. Photographs arc attached as Exhibit "B"
4 c. Despite the terms of thc settlcmcm agreement, Defendants have failed tn coxrcct
5 the discharge of wastewatcr onto our propeny. Photographs showing thc cnntinued
6 discharge arc nttnchcd as Exhibit “B." I was present whcn one of thc tenants m1
7 Dcfenclants' property uscd thc washing machine and lhc liquid from the washing machine
8 came shooting out of the pipc and onto my property. Thc photographs show Ihe pipe
9 discharging and thc liquid waste flowing onto our property. The wastewaler was not going
10 into a drain or any place other lhan on our property.
l 1 4. Wc have had nothing but trouble wiih Mr. Navarro. When we first purchased the
12 property and decided to commence development of our property we contacted Mr. Navarro to
l3 (liscuw (he cnoroachmcms we found that were protruding from Defendants properly onto our
l4 property. Mr. Navarro was extremely rude and uncooperative and lold us that hc was not going to
15 do anything about it and that if we wanted anything done we would need to sue him.
16 5. 'lhc cncroachmcms wcrc significant. Thcrc was a fcncc that was located on our
17 properly, concrete lhat was on our property and an awning the hung over onto our property.
18 Additionally. there were underground pipes that were discharging liquids onto t0 our property and
19 a swalc 0n Defendants‘ property that was dmining liquids on concmtc from Defendants‘ properly
20 and onto to our property.
21 6. Aflcr we filed the lawsuit, Defendants sought tn settle lhe matter and our counsel
22 worked wnh Defendants' counsel to reach a settlement.
23 7. ()nc ofthc terms of the sculcmcnt required Defendants to complete all ofthe agreed
24 upon remediation items within thirty days.
25 8. Defendants continued to play the role oflhc bully. Defendants ignored the provisions
26 ofthc settlement agreement compelling them t0 complete the removal ofthc cncmachments within
27 thirty (30) days. Defendants attempted to put up a different fence than the Cily would allow and
28 had to back track on the fence. It look scvcml months for tho fcncc to be crcctcd.
num-n‘hwl
,
lm
Ime-Aum'mm - 2 .
Wilt. (A 91507
DECLARATION ()F RICHARD BOZNER
Document Filed Date
December 27, 2023
Case Filing Date
January 04, 2022
Category
Other Real Property Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
x, . ORIGINAL 5' FE® AXE F ‘ L gpocAuFoaNm sUcPOEE‘OR COUTN BERNARDINO moms N. Jacobson, smtc Bar #55 1 27 NTY 0F S ?&?IOFF/I‘CESSOF I‘lllOMAS N. JACOBSON own ve., uitc 90 Riverside,C/\ 92507 DEC 2 7 2023 T: (051) 682-7882 ’ “ k F: (951) 632—7884 tom@tomjacobsonlaw.com BY §\ “CUE'CASTRO' DE Attorneys for Defendants. Richard KAUSKA M And Candycc Bozncr Omflaubu“ SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO - SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT RICHARD BOZNER, CANDYCE E. ) CASE NO. CIVSB 2200084 BOZNER as TRUSTEES OF THE BOZNER ) FAMILY TRYUST DATED DECEMBER l6, ) DECLARATION 0F RICHARD 1991, ) BOZNER ) ' Pl t'ffs , 13w. . game“ I 98,9034 g am LUIS NAVARRO, LILIA NAVARRO AS TRUSTEES OF THE NAVARRO TRUST DATED MAY l. 2007, and DOES I-100, inclusive, rum; ) ) ) ) W 2‘50 sal ) Defendants. ) ) l, Richard Bozner, declare ns follows: l. l am one of the tnlstccs of the Plaintiff Trust. If called upon to testify l would testify as set forth herein. All of the matters set forth herein arc within my personal knowledge and experience. 2. The 'I‘mst entered into a settlement agreement with Defendants. A copy of the settlement aglecmcnt is attached hereto n5 Exhibit “A." 3. Despite thc terms of the settlement agreement, Defendants continue to fail lo rcmodiate the matters set fonh in the settlement agreement, including the following: a. 'l‘hcy did not complete thc work as promised within thiny (30) days. b. Aflcr building a fence and placing n anch Drain near the property line, the surface water from the concrete on Defendants‘ property drains over the French drain and onto our Inlflmflmfl - - ll”h~IAu.MIW mCAnm 1 DECLARATION 0F RICHARD BOZNER l propcny. Thc French Drain is totally ineffective as lhc low point ofthc drain is m the same 2 point as where the surface water drains ovcr thc French Drain. ’l'hc French Drain docs not 3 carry water away from the Dcfcndants’ property. Photographs arc attached as Exhibit "B" 4 c. Despite the terms of thc settlcmcm agreement, Defendants have failed tn coxrcct 5 the discharge of wastewatcr onto our propeny. Photographs showing thc cnntinued 6 discharge arc nttnchcd as Exhibit “B." I was present whcn one of thc tenants m1 7 Dcfenclants' property uscd thc washing machine and lhc liquid from the washing machine 8 came shooting out of the pipc and onto my property. Thc photographs show Ihe pipe 9 discharging and thc liquid waste flowing onto our property. The wastewaler was not going 10 into a drain or any place other lhan on our property. l 1 4. Wc have had nothing but trouble wiih Mr. Navarro. When we first purchased the 12 property and decided to commence development of our property we contacted Mr. Navarro to l3 (liscuw (he cnoroachmcms we found that were protruding from Defendants properly onto our l4 property. Mr. Navarro was extremely rude and uncooperative and lold us that hc was not going to 15 do anything about it and that if we wanted anything done we would need to sue him. 16 5. 'lhc cncroachmcms wcrc significant. Thcrc was a fcncc that was located on our 17 properly, concrete lhat was on our property and an awning the hung over onto our property. 18 Additionally. there were underground pipes that were discharging liquids onto t0 our property and 19 a swalc 0n Defendants‘ property that was dmining liquids on concmtc from Defendants‘ properly 20 and onto to our property. 21 6. Aflcr we filed the lawsuit, Defendants sought tn settle lhe matter and our counsel 22 worked wnh Defendants' counsel to reach a settlement. 23 7. ()nc ofthc terms of the sculcmcnt required Defendants to complete all ofthe agreed 24 upon remediation items within thirty days. 25 8. Defendants continued to play the role oflhc bully. Defendants ignored the provisions 26 ofthc settlement agreement compelling them t0 complete the removal ofthc cncmachments within 27 thirty (30) days. Defendants attempted to put up a different fence than the Cily would allow and 28 had to back track on the fence. It look scvcml months for tho fcncc to be crcctcd. num-n‘hwl , lm Ime-Aum'mm - 2 . Wilt. (A 91507 DECLARATION ()F RICHARD BOZNER