On March 06, 2002 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Meline, Charlen M,
Meline, Edward Richard,
Meline, Robert J,
Meline, Stephen, Iv,
and
Edgington, Melanie G,
Jessee, Nelda F,
Meline, David L,
Meline, Jack,
Meline & Rabo Farms Inc, A California Corporation,
Meline, Robert J,
Meline, Stephen, Iv,
Meline, Violet Arlene,
for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property
in the District Court of Butte County.
Preview
eJUN 1 8 2005
? ¥ ® @
Law Office of
WILLIAM A. WARD F Bi utte Count
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Superior Court
STATE BAR NO. 37059
#9 WILLIAMSBURG LANE
|
L
JUN 13 2005
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926
(530) 342-2225 E
D sh, cl clo # D)
By es
Attorney for Defendant,
STEPHEN MELINE IV
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10 EDWARD RICHARD MELINE and Case No. 127180
CHARLENE M. MELINE, Trustees
11 under the Edward Richard Meline and DEFENDANT STEPHEN MELINE
Charlene M. Meline Revocable Living IV’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
12 Trust dated December 30, 1992, - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
ORDER APPOINTING NOEL
13 Plaintiffs, WATKINS AS REFEREE
14 vs. Date: June 17, 2005
Time: 9:00 a.m,
15 JACK MELINE, SHARON MELINE, Dept: TBA
DOROTHY MAY RABO, the testate and Judge: Judge Kelly
16 intestate successors and all persons claim- Trial Date: None.
ing by, through or under FRED A.
17 RABO, deceased, VIOLET ARLENE
MELINE, STEPHEN MELINE, IV,
18 ROBERT J. MELINE, NELDA. F.
JESSEE, MELANIE G. EDGINGTON,
19 the testate and intestate successors and-all
rsons claiming by, through or under
20 DAVID L. MELINE, MELINE & RABO
FARMS, INC., a California corporation
21 and, DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
22 Defendants.
23
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
24
25
26
Defendant Stephen Meline IV’s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel
Watkins as Referee :
1
3 ® @
Defendant Stephen Meline IV, moving party herein, respectfully replies to the
Opposition of Plaintiff to the Motion for Order to Appoint Noel Watkins as Referee as
follows:
1 One of Plaintiff's points in opposition appears to be that if the motion is
granted, Judge Watkins will serve as referee for partition of the Range (the Cross-Complaint)
as well as the Orchard (the Complaint).
Plaintiff’s premise is that because the Complaint has been severed from the Cross-
Complaint, the referee ought to be separately appointed for each cause. No legal authority
is submitted for this argument and no showing is made that the prospective referee could not
10 keep the two causes separate. Indeed, it would be difficult to confuse them since the triable
il issues of fact relating to the Orchard do not have any bearing upon the Range.
12 Judge Watkins need only submit his reports dealing with the Orchard separately from
ZSnes
we 13 the Range. He is certainly capable of distinguishing who are the owners within the four
E83
SE SSos 14 families of the respective properties.
SQSaN
OZ,
SarOns 15 2 Plaintiff’s object to the referee being assigned to determine matters related to
San:
sx Bw S8
16 the Corporation and the respective rights and duties of shareholders and management.
73 Le SO
meh
=e
3¢ ex 17 The problem with that objection is that although a cause of action is not specifically
18 identified in the Complaint, those issues are raised by allegations of the Complaint and
19 moving party’s Answer. The Complaint does not allege that MELINE & RABO FARMS,
20 INC. owns an interest in the realty. However, a prerequisite to partition requires that such
21 interest be determined in view of Defendant’s Answer that "A portion of the Orchard and
22 permanent improvements and fixtures on the real property...are owned by MELINE & RABO
23 FARMS, INC." (Answer, page 2, lines 3-5). Further, the Complaint alleges ({ 13) that
24 Plaintiffs and Defendants can no longer agree as to how best to farm the real property or
25 operate the family business and the value of both." (The family business having been
26 identified as the Corporation (Complaint, page 7, lines 12-15). These allegations which
Defendant Stephen Meline IV’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel
Watkins as Referee
2
> e @
support a request for partition coupled with the allegations supporting the request for
restraining orders open the door to all related issues that must be determined in order to meet
the equitable requirement that the Court is to give complete relief. To do so, the Court in this
case will be unable to avoid making factual determinations as to:
a) The Corporation’s capital structure and its assets:
b) The Corporation rights and interests in the property and fixtures;
c) Management issues
d) The impact of partition upon the Corporation, that is, how the shareholder
interests can be adequately protected for purpose of dissolution.
10 3 Conclusion
.
11 It makes good sense for judicial economy to have the trier of fact be the trier of fact
12 for all issues and not leave a gap in the issues for which the reference is made that can be
ZSaZzo
wea 13 filled only by future motions for orders seeking further references or rulings to determine
ew:
Beos 14 some but not all the issues in a case
2 ok
OZ, ay
geo i 15 Moving party respectfully submits that notwithstanding the objections to a general
se
ao
Bugt reference, there is no inconsistency in the partition statutes (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 872
we 16
eF5e
SPT
z¢ 17 et seq.) and the general rules pertaining to referees. For example, Code of Civil Procedure
18 § 873.290 is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure § 644(b) because there is no agreement
19 for a consensual general reference (See Opposition papers filed by RABO Defendants), both
20 statutes operate to allow the referee’s findings to be reviewed.
21 Dated: June 10, 2005 Respectfully submitted,
ttn
22
23
Attorney for Defendant,
24 STEPHEN MELINE IV
25
26
Defendant Stephen Meline IV’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel
Watkins as Referee
3
* e e
PROOF OF SERVICE
I declare that I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California. I am over
the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is #9
Williamsburg Lane, Chico, California, 95926.
OnJiune 10, 2005, I served foregoing document(s) described as: Defendant Stephen
Meline. IV’s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel
Watkins as Referee ~
on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows:
John Jeffe: Carter, Esq. Richard L. Crabtree
CARTER AW OFFIC Attorney at Law
10 P. O. Box 854 Manzanita Court, #110
Chico, CA 95927-3606 Chico, CA 9592
UW
Nels A. Christensen; Esq. James B. Berglund
12 CHRISTENSEN & SC ARZ, LLP Attorney at Law
1 Governors Lane 1639 Bird Street
Bey tt 13 Chico, CA 95926 Oroville, CA 95965
EDne ew
SB Sos 14
SZ 3EN Charleton S. Pearse, Esq.
eos 15 McMURCHIE, WEILL, LENAHAN, LEE,
as ea
SLATER & PEARSE, LLP
Bu
wEcSO~ 16 1030 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300
re Sacramento, CA 95814
=
Preview
eJUN 1 8 2005 ? ¥ ® @ Law Office of WILLIAM A. WARD F Bi utte Count A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Superior Court STATE BAR NO. 37059 #9 WILLIAMSBURG LANE | L JUN 13 2005 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 (530) 342-2225 E D sh, cl clo # D) By es Attorney for Defendant, STEPHEN MELINE IV SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 EDWARD RICHARD MELINE and Case No. 127180 CHARLENE M. MELINE, Trustees 11 under the Edward Richard Meline and DEFENDANT STEPHEN MELINE Charlene M. Meline Revocable Living IV’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S 12 Trust dated December 30, 1992, - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER APPOINTING NOEL 13 Plaintiffs, WATKINS AS REFEREE 14 vs. Date: June 17, 2005 Time: 9:00 a.m, 15 JACK MELINE, SHARON MELINE, Dept: TBA DOROTHY MAY RABO, the testate and Judge: Judge Kelly 16 intestate successors and all persons claim- Trial Date: None. ing by, through or under FRED A. 17 RABO, deceased, VIOLET ARLENE MELINE, STEPHEN MELINE, IV, 18 ROBERT J. MELINE, NELDA. F. JESSEE, MELANIE G. EDGINGTON, 19 the testate and intestate successors and-all rsons claiming by, through or under 20 DAVID L. MELINE, MELINE & RABO FARMS, INC., a California corporation 21 and, DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION 24 25 26 Defendant Stephen Meline IV’s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel Watkins as Referee : 1 3 ® @ Defendant Stephen Meline IV, moving party herein, respectfully replies to the Opposition of Plaintiff to the Motion for Order to Appoint Noel Watkins as Referee as follows: 1 One of Plaintiff's points in opposition appears to be that if the motion is granted, Judge Watkins will serve as referee for partition of the Range (the Cross-Complaint) as well as the Orchard (the Complaint). Plaintiff’s premise is that because the Complaint has been severed from the Cross- Complaint, the referee ought to be separately appointed for each cause. No legal authority is submitted for this argument and no showing is made that the prospective referee could not 10 keep the two causes separate. Indeed, it would be difficult to confuse them since the triable il issues of fact relating to the Orchard do not have any bearing upon the Range. 12 Judge Watkins need only submit his reports dealing with the Orchard separately from ZSnes we 13 the Range. He is certainly capable of distinguishing who are the owners within the four E83 SE SSos 14 families of the respective properties. SQSaN OZ, SarOns 15 2 Plaintiff’s object to the referee being assigned to determine matters related to San: sx Bw S8 16 the Corporation and the respective rights and duties of shareholders and management. 73 Le SO meh =e 3¢ ex 17 The problem with that objection is that although a cause of action is not specifically 18 identified in the Complaint, those issues are raised by allegations of the Complaint and 19 moving party’s Answer. The Complaint does not allege that MELINE & RABO FARMS, 20 INC. owns an interest in the realty. However, a prerequisite to partition requires that such 21 interest be determined in view of Defendant’s Answer that "A portion of the Orchard and 22 permanent improvements and fixtures on the real property...are owned by MELINE & RABO 23 FARMS, INC." (Answer, page 2, lines 3-5). Further, the Complaint alleges ({ 13) that 24 Plaintiffs and Defendants can no longer agree as to how best to farm the real property or 25 operate the family business and the value of both." (The family business having been 26 identified as the Corporation (Complaint, page 7, lines 12-15). These allegations which Defendant Stephen Meline IV’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel Watkins as Referee 2 > e @ support a request for partition coupled with the allegations supporting the request for restraining orders open the door to all related issues that must be determined in order to meet the equitable requirement that the Court is to give complete relief. To do so, the Court in this case will be unable to avoid making factual determinations as to: a) The Corporation’s capital structure and its assets: b) The Corporation rights and interests in the property and fixtures; c) Management issues d) The impact of partition upon the Corporation, that is, how the shareholder interests can be adequately protected for purpose of dissolution. 10 3 Conclusion . 11 It makes good sense for judicial economy to have the trier of fact be the trier of fact 12 for all issues and not leave a gap in the issues for which the reference is made that can be ZSaZzo wea 13 filled only by future motions for orders seeking further references or rulings to determine ew: Beos 14 some but not all the issues in a case 2 ok OZ, ay geo i 15 Moving party respectfully submits that notwithstanding the objections to a general se ao Bugt reference, there is no inconsistency in the partition statutes (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 872 we 16 eF5e SPT z¢ 17 et seq.) and the general rules pertaining to referees. For example, Code of Civil Procedure 18 § 873.290 is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure § 644(b) because there is no agreement 19 for a consensual general reference (See Opposition papers filed by RABO Defendants), both 20 statutes operate to allow the referee’s findings to be reviewed. 21 Dated: June 10, 2005 Respectfully submitted, ttn 22 23 Attorney for Defendant, 24 STEPHEN MELINE IV 25 26 Defendant Stephen Meline IV’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel Watkins as Referee 3 * e e PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am employed in the County of Butte, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is #9 Williamsburg Lane, Chico, California, 95926. OnJiune 10, 2005, I served foregoing document(s) described as: Defendant Stephen Meline. IV’s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Order Appointing Noel Watkins as Referee ~ on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows: John Jeffe: Carter, Esq. Richard L. Crabtree CARTER AW OFFIC Attorney at Law 10 P. O. Box 854 Manzanita Court, #110 Chico, CA 95927-3606 Chico, CA 9592 UW Nels A. Christensen; Esq. James B. Berglund 12 CHRISTENSEN & SC ARZ, LLP Attorney at Law 1 Governors Lane 1639 Bird Street Bey tt 13 Chico, CA 95926 Oroville, CA 95965 EDne ew SB Sos 14 SZ 3EN Charleton S. Pearse, Esq. eos 15 McMURCHIE, WEILL, LENAHAN, LEE, as ea SLATER & PEARSE, LLP Bu wEcSO~ 16 1030 Fifteenth Street, Suite 300 re Sacramento, CA 95814 =