Edition: January 23, 2009
|
POA Corporate Counsel The Association is pleased to report to the membership that in December, 2008, Superior Court Judge Mac R. Fisher entered a ruling in the “Bolanos vs. Canyon Lake Property Owners Association, et al.” (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 468434) granting the motion of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (“EVMWD”) for summary adjudication on the issue of a duty to provide public access to the Canyon Lake Reservoir. The Association and the City of Canyon Lake both joined in EVMWD’s motion. In an order filed December 19, 2008, Judge Fisher held that EVMWD has “no duty to open the Reservoir for public recreation under any of the constitutional or statutory enactments cited in Bolanos’ Complaint . . .” Judge Fisher found the California statutes relied on by Bolanos “impose no duty to provide public access . . . [EVMWD] acquired its interests in the Reservoir by virtue of an eminent domain action [and] said acquisition was expressly subject to the Association’s exclusive leasehold interest in the Reservoir’s surface rights.” The judge also ruled that the California Constitution does not mandate that the Reservoir be open to public fishing because, first, the underlying property is not owned by the State of California and, secondly, because the Association holds an exclusive leasehold interest in the surface rights. Judge Fisher’s recent ruling did not entirely resolve the Bolanos lawsuit, although plaintiff Bolanos may decide to dismiss the remaining allegations in the lawsuit in light of the ruling Judge Fisher made on the main contention in the case. If plaintiff Bolanos dismisses the balance of his case, he may initiate an appeal from Judge Fisher’s ruling. The Association is very pleased with Judge Fisher’s ruling which upholds the Association’s private property right to exclusive use of the surface of the Canyon Lake Reservoir for the benefit of the Association’s members. The Association has contended from the outset that its private property rights cannot be taken under the theories advanced by plaintiff Bolanos, and Judge Fisher so held. Association members should bear in mind that if the plaintiff pursues an appeal in this case, the case may not be finally resolved for two years or more. The Association will use its best efforts to expeditiously bring the litigation to what it hopes will be a favorable conclusion. |
|
|||||||