On March 06, 2002 a
Motion,Ex Parte
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
John Jeffery Carter — SBN 079857
329 Flume Street amend Court ul Gaiwnia
Ul'l'lF—TI
P. O. Box 3606 Emmy d Bulte
Chico, CA
EUI‘I‘IF—fi
95927-3606
Telephone: (530) 342-6196 10/28/2021
Facsimile: (530) 342-6195
Attorney for Defendants Randall C. Meline and I
gem
Joan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard DEF“?
Meline and Charlene M. Meline lrrevocable
Trust dated December 30, 1992 and Linda G. Carlson,
Trustee of the Jack Meline 1994 Irrevocable Trust.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE
STEPHEN MELlNE, IV, ) Case No.: l27180
ROBERT MELINE, et al., )
) DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE FOR
Plaintiffs, ) VIEW OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY
)
vs. ) Date: November 3, 202]
RANDALL C. MELINE and ) Time: 10:00 am
l3
JOAN STONER, Co—Trustees, et al., ) Trial Date: November 8, 2021
l4 ) (Estimated duration - 12 days)
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
IS Defendants. ) Dept: l
/ )
)
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. )
l7
)
/ )
l9
20 Defendants the Dick Meline Trust and the Jack Meline Trust hereby move the Court to order a
viewing
2| of the property that is the subject of this litigation. Such viewing is necessary as Plaintiffs seek to partition the
22
property into only two separate parcels despite there being ll separate owners of the pr0perty. Per their scheme,
23
the four individual plaintiffswill collectively receive a piece of the property more or less equal to one-quarter
24
thereof. Plaintiffs apparently have agreed to aggregate each of their individual .0625 interestsin the property into
25
acollective .25 piece of the property.
26
Plaintiffs then would have the Court order the seven defendants, including two trusts each owning a .25
27
interest and five individuals each owning a .05 interest in the property, to aggregate their reSpective interests into
28
DEFENDANTS' MOTION [N LIMINE FOR VlEW 0F THE DISPUTED PROPERTY
a collective .75 interest and receive a piece of the property more or less equal to three-quarters thereof, despite
the fact that none of the defendants wishes to so aggregate its, his or her interest in the property with the others.
And as if thisis not bad enough, plaintiffs then, through an alchemy akin to turning a base metal into
gold, would have the Court grant them as their one-quarter piece all of the Stilson Canyon and the ridge above it,
while defendants collectively would get as their three-quarters piece all the rest of the property, consisting oi
barely accessible, lava capped, ridgetop property.
Simply, the Court must see the property to see and understand it in order to balance the equities of such at
proposal.
IO POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
g A View of the Subject Property is Necessary and Proper in Order to Understand it and to
Balance the Eguities of a Partition in Kind of it
12
Code of Civil Procedure § 651 provides that the Court may order a view of property subject to litigation
13
on the motion of any party “where the court finds that such a view would be prOper and would aid the trier of
14 fact
IS
in itsdetermination of the case.” Whether or not to grant a View iswithin the court’s discretion. (Legislative
[6 Committee Comment to Section 651: See also, Los Ange/es County v. Pan Am Development Corp. (1956) 146
I? Cal.App.2d 15, 20).
A partition action is an equitable action, requiring the Court to partition the property in kind if itcan be
I9
done equitably and if not, toorder a sale of the property with the net proceeds thereof to be divided among the
20
parties per their respective interests in the property. In order to do this, the Court must view the property. It must
2i
view Stilson Canyon and the ridgetop in order to understand the nature of it and possible plans for its partition,
22
and to balance the equities and hardships of any such plan.
23
_B_. A View Will Require Approxim_atelv One-Half Dav. Which in a 12 Day Trial, is not an
24
Undue Amount of Time
25
The subject property is appr0ximately one mile from the courthouse. Stilson Canyon is readily accessible
26
via public roads, while the ridgetop will require use of four-wheel drive vehicles. A Jeep with a non-party driven
27
will be provided to transport Your Honor, while parties and their counsel will be lefi to their own devices. The
28
DEF ENDANTS' MOTION [N LlMlNE FOR VIEW OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY
2
time that will be spent on the visit to the property will off-set the need for time in court as to testimony of the
description and unique characteristics of the property.
Should the Court so wish, the viewing can be limited to one party of each family branch and the attorney
therefor with comment by any of them limited to response to any question directed to them by the Court. Too, a
route agreed upon in advance by counsel and the parties would be strictly adhered to.
CONCLUSION
The only way to fully appreciate the property that is the subject of this partition action and to understand
and balance the equities of a partition is to see the property in person. A site visit thus is appropriate and
l0 necessary for the Court to understand the subject of this action and the parties’ interests in it.
Respectfully submitted,
l2
John effery Cart Office
l3
l4 October 27, 2021 By . .
/ohn J
../ .
fery Carter, Att
A, x _ ,
ey for Defendants,
l5 Randall C. Meline an oan Stoner, Co-Trustees
of the Edward Richard Meline and Charlene M.
Meline lrrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992
and Linda G. Carlson, Trustee of the Jack Meline
1994 lrrevocable Trust
20
2|
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D'EFE'NDANTS' WTION IN LIMINE FOR VIEw 0F THE DISPUTED PROPERTY
3
PROOF OF SERVICE
Meline, et al. v. Meline, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case N o. 127180
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 party 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:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE FOR VIEW 0F THE DISPUTED PROPERTY
0n the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the
parties/counsel, addressed as follows:
Aaron W. Moore Jeffery J. Swanson
Moore & Bogener, Inc. Swanson Law Office
1600 West Street 2515 Park Marina Drive, Ste 102
Redding, CA 96001 Redding, CA 96001
10
Charleton S. Pearse
ll Lenahan, Lee, Slater, Pearse & Majernik, LLP
2542 River Plaza Drive
12
Sacramento, CA 95833
13
The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
14
15
X U.S. Postal Service (placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fillly prepaid in the
designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby the
mail is deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Chico, California afier the close of the
l6
day’s business).
l7 Federal Express
18
Express Mail
19
Personal Service
20 Facsimile
21
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document is
22 executed at Chico, California on October 27, 2021. __
23
24
N
MW
COLE HEINDELL
25
26
27
28
Preview
John Jeffery Carter — SBN 079857 329 Flume Street amend Court ul Gaiwnia Ul'l'lF—TI P. O. Box 3606 Emmy d Bulte Chico, CA EUI‘I‘IF—fi 95927-3606 Telephone: (530) 342-6196 10/28/2021 Facsimile: (530) 342-6195 Attorney for Defendants Randall C. Meline and I gem Joan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard DEF“? Meline and Charlene M. Meline lrrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992 and Linda G. Carlson, Trustee of the Jack Meline 1994 Irrevocable Trust. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE STEPHEN MELlNE, IV, ) Case No.: l27180 ROBERT MELINE, et al., ) ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE FOR Plaintiffs, ) VIEW OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY ) vs. ) Date: November 3, 202] RANDALL C. MELINE and ) Time: 10:00 am l3 JOAN STONER, Co—Trustees, et al., ) Trial Date: November 8, 2021 l4 ) (Estimated duration - 12 days) ) Time: 8:30 a.m. IS Defendants. ) Dept: l / ) ) AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. ) l7 ) / ) l9 20 Defendants the Dick Meline Trust and the Jack Meline Trust hereby move the Court to order a viewing 2| of the property that is the subject of this litigation. Such viewing is necessary as Plaintiffs seek to partition the 22 property into only two separate parcels despite there being ll separate owners of the pr0perty. Per their scheme, 23 the four individual plaintiffswill collectively receive a piece of the property more or less equal to one-quarter 24 thereof. Plaintiffs apparently have agreed to aggregate each of their individual .0625 interestsin the property into 25 acollective .25 piece of the property. 26 Plaintiffs then would have the Court order the seven defendants, including two trusts each owning a .25 27 interest and five individuals each owning a .05 interest in the property, to aggregate their reSpective interests into 28 DEFENDANTS' MOTION [N LIMINE FOR VlEW 0F THE DISPUTED PROPERTY a collective .75 interest and receive a piece of the property more or less equal to three-quarters thereof, despite the fact that none of the defendants wishes to so aggregate its, his or her interest in the property with the others. And as if thisis not bad enough, plaintiffs then, through an alchemy akin to turning a base metal into gold, would have the Court grant them as their one-quarter piece all of the Stilson Canyon and the ridge above it, while defendants collectively would get as their three-quarters piece all the rest of the property, consisting oi barely accessible, lava capped, ridgetop property. Simply, the Court must see the property to see and understand it in order to balance the equities of such at proposal. IO POINTS AND AUTHORITIES g A View of the Subject Property is Necessary and Proper in Order to Understand it and to Balance the Eguities of a Partition in Kind of it 12 Code of Civil Procedure § 651 provides that the Court may order a view of property subject to litigation 13 on the motion of any party “where the court finds that such a view would be prOper and would aid the trier of 14 fact IS in itsdetermination of the case.” Whether or not to grant a View iswithin the court’s discretion. (Legislative [6 Committee Comment to Section 651: See also, Los Ange/es County v. Pan Am Development Corp. (1956) 146 I? Cal.App.2d 15, 20). A partition action is an equitable action, requiring the Court to partition the property in kind if itcan be I9 done equitably and if not, toorder a sale of the property with the net proceeds thereof to be divided among the 20 parties per their respective interests in the property. In order to do this, the Court must view the property. It must 2i view Stilson Canyon and the ridgetop in order to understand the nature of it and possible plans for its partition, 22 and to balance the equities and hardships of any such plan. 23 _B_. A View Will Require Approxim_atelv One-Half Dav. Which in a 12 Day Trial, is not an 24 Undue Amount of Time 25 The subject property is appr0ximately one mile from the courthouse. Stilson Canyon is readily accessible 26 via public roads, while the ridgetop will require use of four-wheel drive vehicles. A Jeep with a non-party driven 27 will be provided to transport Your Honor, while parties and their counsel will be lefi to their own devices. The 28 DEF ENDANTS' MOTION [N LlMlNE FOR VIEW OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY 2 time that will be spent on the visit to the property will off-set the need for time in court as to testimony of the description and unique characteristics of the property. Should the Court so wish, the viewing can be limited to one party of each family branch and the attorney therefor with comment by any of them limited to response to any question directed to them by the Court. Too, a route agreed upon in advance by counsel and the parties would be strictly adhered to. CONCLUSION The only way to fully appreciate the property that is the subject of this partition action and to understand and balance the equities of a partition is to see the property in person. A site visit thus is appropriate and l0 necessary for the Court to understand the subject of this action and the parties’ interests in it. Respectfully submitted, l2 John effery Cart Office l3 l4 October 27, 2021 By . . /ohn J ../ . fery Carter, Att A, x _ , ey for Defendants, l5 Randall C. Meline an oan Stoner, Co-Trustees of the Edward Richard Meline and Charlene M. Meline lrrevocable Trust dated December 30, 1992 and Linda G. Carlson, Trustee of the Jack Meline 1994 lrrevocable Trust 20 2| 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D'EFE'NDANTS' WTION IN LIMINE FOR VIEw 0F THE DISPUTED PROPERTY 3 PROOF OF SERVICE Meline, et al. v. Meline, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case N o. 127180 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 party 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: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE FOR VIEW 0F THE DISPUTED PROPERTY 0n the parties below by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope and served same on the parties/counsel, addressed as follows: Aaron W. Moore Jeffery J. Swanson Moore & Bogener, Inc. Swanson Law Office 1600 West Street 2515 Park Marina Drive, Ste 102 Redding, CA 96001 Redding, CA 96001 10 Charleton S. Pearse ll Lenahan, Lee, Slater, Pearse & Majernik, LLP 2542 River Plaza Drive 12 Sacramento, CA 95833 13 The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected: 14 15 X U.S. Postal Service (placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fillly prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice, whereby the mail is deposited in the U.S. mailbox in the City of Chico, California afier the close of the l6 day’s business). l7 Federal Express 18 Express Mail 19 Personal Service 20 Facsimile 21 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document is 22 executed at Chico, California on October 27, 2021. __ 23 24 N MW COLE HEINDELL 25 26 27 28