NCFM Member Jerry Cox saga continues – Judge calls disparity in Cox case disturbing

The controversial case involving a local man whose property was placed into receivership took a new twist on Monday.

The case involves Jerry Cox, owner of JDC Land Company, who is also now a candidate for county supervisor in District 3.

The high-profile case involves 430 acres of land which the court ordered into receivership last year. The matter was based on more than 100 alleged code violations cited by Mariposa County.

An appeal has been filed on that ruling, however, the case involving the receivership continues forward. A receivership in California involves the court appointing a person or company to oversee rehabilitation of property that has been deemed a public health hazard. In many cases, those involve larger housing projects in which income is generated even while the property is in receivership.

But in this case, Cox’s property is not generating money as it has sat empty since the court ruling. In addition, the receiver has been granted funds by the court for everything from security to taking care of animals.

Cox’s attorneys have argued the sole purpose of the receivership is for that person to get estimates on how to rehabilitate the property, something that has never happened. The receiver, Mark Adams of California Receivership Group of Santa Monica, told the court in January he could not get companies to give him estimates.

He cited intimidation by Cox via social media as well as the high-profile nature of the case as reasons he could not get bids. At one point in January, Mariposa County Superior Court Judge Dana Walton suggested Adams use a phone book to look for contractors.

In the meantime, Cox has gathered estimates — and they are much lower than the more than $200,000 Adams was estimating for doing the rehabilitation.

And that was the focus of Monday’s court hearing.

Attorney Imran Khaliq of Menlo Park, who represents Cox, told the court he felt it was his client who did the work in getting estimates when the “receiver was supposed to do it.”

In his court filing, Cox presented an estimate of $18,000 to complete the work at the ranch, which is located on CYA Road north of the airport in Mariposa.

That estimate came from The Building Design Group which is located on Ben Hur Road in Mariposa.

The report from that company indicates the proposal is for “work/services for a classification R-3 occupancy only.”

The county has contended Cox was using the property for guest rentals and not paying transient occupancy taxes.

“The owner has opted to stop all commercial activity … unless the proper permits are obtained,” wrote Marc Farias Jones, property manager of The Building Design Group.

During the hearing, Khaliq also brought up the issue of the “$230,000 already ordered by this court,” referring to the fees charged to date by the receiver.

Walton seemed to indicate that issue might be dealt with in another way. But before addressing that issue, the judge asked Khaliq what he and Adams could agree to when it comes to the proposal presented by Cox.

In addressing the court, Adams did say he would agree “to use the design professional and contractor they propose.”

Adams also asked the court to order an additional $40,000 to cover costs his company has incurred. He said fees were advanced by his company to cover some costs.

That’s another issue the judge would address later.

The judge then pressed Khaliq about “what can you live with today?”

Khaliq said his client would agree to deposit $18,000 into the receivership account to be used solely for the rehabilitation work proposed by the local firm.

But anything beyond that, said Khaliq, should be brought before the court. He again brought up the many bills presented by the receiver since the last hearing in January.

Walton pointed out he has “not approved any receiver bills” since February.

What that indicates remains to be seen, but prior to that, the judge did routinely approve bills presented by the receiver.

Walton also raised the possibility of having an outside person get involved with what he called the “secondary issues” relating to the receivership. Those issues appear to be Cox’s claim the receiver had no intention of rehabilitating the property and was moving toward having it sold to recoup his costs.

The bulk of those costs have been for security at the property, another issue which has been questioned by Cox’s attorneys. In court on Monday, Adams did say $137,000 of the costs have been for security, what he called “by far” the largest portion.

Previously, Cox’s attorneys have questioned that security, pointing out they had video of security officers having their families at the ranch and even using Cox’s all-terrain vehicles.

That aside, on Monday, Walton ordered that Cox place $18,000 into the account by this Friday, which was agreed to by Cox. That money will be used strictly for doing the rehabilitation on the property.

“Everyone seems to agree there are issues on the property,” said Walton. “We now have a number to deal with.”

But that number, $18,000 opposed to more than $200,000, leaves a lot of questions.

Adams said it is a “large disparity” as opposed to his estimates, though he has never produced formal estimates from an architect or contractor to the court.

The judge seemed to agree the disparity is an issue.

“The entire thing has been disturbing to this court,” said the judge. “Moving from $150,000 to $18,000 creates a disturbance.”

The judge was referring to the estimate by Adams of $150,000 for just the rehabilitation and not the engineering. Earlier in the hearing, Adams said the $150,000 was “just for contracting.”

The judge also told all parties involved he wanted to “keep a tight rein” on the case. He told all the lawyers he wanted bi-weekly updates, or “status conferences” in the case.

Adams argued the first such conference should be in 30 days because of the time it will take to get county permits as well as consult with the contractor.

But the judge decided to bring back all of the parties on May 30 at 2:30 p.m. for a status conference. He also set the second conference for June 18 at 2 p.m.

That was also when Walton said he could move toward appointing a “special master” in the case to hear the arguments outside the scope of just the rehabilitation work. Those could include arguments by Cox that the receiver has overcharged in his case as well as other materials submitted by Cox alleging the receiver is involved in other cases in which he is accused of overcharging and not doing the work.

At one point in Monday’s hearing, Walton told Khaliq he knows there are other issues.

“I know what you want,” said Walton, saying it was the “receiver dismissed” and to “move on.”

But the judge said that was “not going to happen today,” though he did add he was “not saying it wasn’t” going to happen, even suggesting “sooner than later” though he gave no specifics.

Khaliq then brought up the issue of having Cox move back onto this property. He said Cox has been homeless since the court ordered him off the property more than a year ago.

He said the “primary concern” is to get Cox “back into his house.”

Walton said the court has “considered it,” but said whenever the case is resolved, if there are “funds still to be paid” by Cox and he is “unable” to pay those funds, Cox would have to move and the possibility exists the property would be sold.

The judge said he didn’t know “if any” funds would be owed by Cox, but said there “probably” would be. The judge said he wanted to focus on getting the property rehabilitated before allowing Cox back into his home.

“I will consider after remediation … letting him back in,” said Walton.

He also told everyone it is his hope a settlement conference can have a good outcome so he doesn’t have to appoint someone else to handle the issues, something he said costs everyone money.

“The last thing this court wants to do is appoint a special master,” said Walton, adding it would add costs to everyone involved.

But the judge did say if that becomes the case, he will appoint someone because it is beyond the scope of what the local court can handle.