If you wonder why this is related to men’s rights and have not followed the case, it was exacerbated by false sexual assault allegations by one Ashley Harris who may now be living in or around San Louis Obispo , CA… Since Mariposa County law enforcement and the district attorney refused to hold Harris accountable we have assisted Jerry Cox in his efforts to sue her civilly; and, thus far, the courts have thwarted efforts to hold her accountable for the horrific damage she caused Jerry. It seems, no one in the criminal or civil justice systems has much interest in bringing her to justice or helping Jerry overcome the damage she caused. If you believe, our justice system is the best there is then we are in deep trouble, especially for anyone with a penis…
After a lengthy hiatus, the controversial case against Mariposa County landowner Jerry Cox was back in the courtroom this week — and had no shortage of controversy.
It’s been a few months since the case was before Mariposa County Superior Court Judge Dana Walton, and representatives on all sides of the issue had differing viewpoints during the hearing. That’s not shocking given the controversial nature of the case, in which Cox, owner of JDC Land Co., had his property placed into receivership by the court more than two years ago. He owns a tract of more than 400 acres located on CYA Road north of the airport in Mariposa.
Since that time, the case has ping-ponged back and forth in the court, with each side claiming the other was presenting incorrect information.
This Monday’s hearing was no different, with the receiver in the case, Mark Adams, saying he had someone interested in purchasing the property — land where Cox is once again living but with the receivership case hanging over his head.
During the hearing, attorney Marc Angelucci announced he had submitted an appraisal to the court, countering what he said was Adams’ intention to sell the property for way under its value.
In fact, Angelucci said just one piece of the land was worth as much as Adams was willing to sell the entire 437 acres for — and Cox’s lawyer was not happy about that situation.
In California, when a matter is placed into receiver- ship, the court appoints someone to oversee the project. In this case, the court found Cox in violation of more than 100 code violations and put Adams in place to handle needed repairs and more.
But Cox contends Adams did nothing but inflate the numbers in an effort to make money. He also has presented videos and other evidence of workers at the property using Cox’s ATV vehicles and having their relatives over for visits.
Adams told the court he felt it was “a good offer” on the table.
But Angelucci told the court the appraisal received by Cox, from Meredith A. Krulee, a state certified appraiser from Mariposa, indicated the land was worth far more.
Though Adams never said in court exactly how much the offer was for, at one point, Angelucci threw out the cost of $700,000, and said that was “extremely unjust.”
In fact, the appraisal which was submitted to the court suggests just a 160-acre parcel, where the main house is located, is worth more than $800,000. That still leaves roughly 180 acres not appraised in the document. One of those parcels is another 160 acres and does contain a dwelling. The other is 120 acres.
The appraisal submitted by Cox indicated various comparable properties that sold from $781,000 to $824,000. It also indicated ranch land can be sold for around $2,500 an acre. That would indicate the unimproved land on Cox’s property would be worth in the neighborhood of $700,000 in addition to the 160 acres with the dwellings.
Walton acknowledged the court had received the appraisal, but said it was submitted so late the court could not consider the matter until the next hearing.
Angelucci said he “understands” the concern of the court about the late filing. He also told the court there was the possibility of the land going into a Natural Resources Conservation Service program for removal of dead trees.
At another point, Angelucci also indicated the land could be sold in separate parcels.
On one page of the appraisal submitted to the court, it indicates that could be the case.
The appraiser wrote in the report that she contacted county officials about the property. She said she contacted the assessor’s office as well as the planning and building departments “in an effort to verify legally, zoning of the subject parcel and adjacent parcels as combined and as sole and separate parcels.”
The appraisal indicates that Sarah Williams, county planning director, stated the following: “Please be advised that all three of these APNs are separate legal parcels. That means any one may be sold separately, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act.”
It also goes on to say the appraiser contacted Mike Kinslow of the building department. The appraisal indicates because of the Williamson Act, which deals with agriculture land, one of the parcels should not be managed from one of the adjacent 160 acre parcels.
Here’s one other sentence from Krulee’s report: “Additional information — per Mike Kinslow, building department, there are no violations in regards to the subject property.”
Cox’s attorney also claimed during the hearing there were “errors on documents” submitted by Adams concerning the possible sale of the property. He did not specify those errors.
For Angelucci, he believes any talk of selling the property is premature.
“I strongly object to any sale of the property,” he said.
Angelucci also said there is not firm number yet on exactly how much the court will award the receiver when it comes to any final settlement amount.
“We don’t even know how much fees will be approved,” said Angelucci.
Walton told the attorney he “originally” thought he would “look at the issues” separately, meaning the offer to sell the property as well as the appraisal and the possible NRCS program. But, he said, it “might be more appropriate” to take up the issues together.
Attorney John Fuji, who represents the county through the firm Silver & Wright, reminded the court that a court of appeals granted the county’s request that Cox not be allowed to sue Adams, the receiver. That issue was apparently handed down last week.
Under receivership laws in California, the court must approve almost any decisions that happen, including whether the defendant can sue others.
“We intend to file another motion,” said Angelucci.
The reason, he said, is “because of the condition of the property” when Cox was allowed to return. He said there were many issues, including electrical and flood damage.
Walton told Cox’s attorney the “most important” issues right now are the appraisal they submitted as well as the NRCS possibility.
The judge also addressed the issue of how long this case has taken.
“One side feels we’re going to slow; one side feels we’re going to fast; and then it reverses,” said Walton.
Angelucci told the court Cox needed “to know” if the county was going to object to the appraisal.
“You talk to them,” the judge advised.
Adams said there are “concerns” about pending sales in receivership cases. He added there is “no reason” to think the potential buyer “will panic … but buyers want certainty.”
He also asked to be able to submit the offer with the name of the potential buyer redacted. He said he would make the terms public. Walton told Adams to submit the request to the court.
Angelucci told the court he believes these issues should not be considered until the court makes a final determination when discharging the receivership.
Adams, however, said he believed these are the decisions “that should be considered at discharge.”
He also reminded the court his company, California Receivership Group, is “not getting paid and haven’t for quite some time.”
The court has to approve any payments owed by Cox for work the receiver claims was done on the property. The judge has not approved any of the claims for quite some time.
Walton said because the appraisal and NRCS program were submitted late, the case would have to be continued for the parties to have time to review the matters. He also warned about future late filings.
“Those filings must be timely,” said Walton. “Late filings do nothing but extend the process.”
He said if filings are late, the court “will reserve the right to strike.”
The next hearing in the matter was set for Wednesday, May 29 at 3:30 p.m.
Angelucci then asked if the court would, at that time, make a decision about selling the property.
Adams said he felt that would be the appropriate time.
Angelucci strongly disagreed.
“It would be very improper to be deciding or discussing the sale before the discharge,” he said.
Angelucci called it putting the “cart before the horse,” saying the court still has to decide exactly how much Cox might owe the receiver.
“Now, when we are talking about selling property … that should not be rushed,” said Angelucci.
He said depending on what the court decides, the monetary difference could be staggering — and could go directly as to whether the property must be sold or whether part of the property could be sold. He also said Cox would have to work out a repayment plan, and any money owed to the receiver would have to be determined prior to that plan.
“I’m certainly willing to listen to your arguments,” said Walton.
He instructed Angelucci to submit any necessary filings ahead of the scheduled hearing.
Mariposa County Counsel Steve Dahlem also spoke at the end of the hearing, admonishing Angelucci about his references to the county as opposed to the receiver.
The county originally filed, and won, the case against Cox. The court then appointed the receiver. The county does, however, continue to pay an outside firm where lawyers are present at each hearing.
Dahlem said Angelucci “continues to confuse” the county and the receiver. He called it “two entities”in the case.
Cox back in court over land issue