Pubdate: Sun, 13 Mar 2016
Source: Appeal-Democrat (Marysville, CA)
Copyright: 2016 Appeal-Democrat
Contact: 
https://appeal-democrat-dot-com.bloxcms-ny1.com/site/forms/online_services/letter/
Website: http://www.appeal-democrat.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1343
Author: Eric Vodden

JUDGE VACATES FINES AGAINST COUPLE OVER TENANT-GROWN POT

A Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a couple who filed suit 
against Yuba County over more than $30,000 in civil penalties they 
were assessed for marijuana grown by tenants.

But a Yuba County official said that, unlike a similar case that also 
went against the county, no appeal will be filed challenging the 
local ruling. Instead, John Vacek, chief deputy county counsel, said 
the code enforcement division is planning to change internal 
procedures to comply with the ruling.

"We are looking at some administrative changes to address the 
concerns the judges seem to have had," Vacek said.

The Feb. 26 ruling by Judge Kathleen R. O'Connor directed Yuba County 
to vacate its decision to impose fines of $30,050 on Jesus and Maria 
Torres, owners of property on South Gledhill Avenue in Linda.

Code enforcement officers said they found 86 marijuana plants in June 
2015 on the Torres' property. Penalties and abatement costs were 
imposed for violating an outdoor growing ban, not growing plants 
within a qualified structure, failing to register with the county and 
other alleged offenses.

But the lawsuit filed last October claims there is legal precedent 
precluding landlords from being held responsible for the activity of 
tenants. In the Torres case, the suit states the couple rented the 
property to Joshua Hatfield "throughout the period when the ordinance 
violation occurred."

"The petitioners cannot be held responsible for the acts of their 
tenants," the suit maintains.

The county contended the couple "had failed to exhaust their 
administrative remedies and have forfeited their right to present a 
defense since they did not request a hearing disputing that the 
marijuana grow constituted a nuisance ..."

But in her ruling, O'Connor stated the evidence showed they didn't 
allow the marijuana grow, "that the marijuana grow was abated by the 
time they were notified one had existed; that they did not give 
anyone permission to cultivate marijuana on their premises; and that 
their failure to detect the marijuana grow was reasonable ..."

The ruling is the second that has gone against the county in 
connection with property owners fined for the marijuana cultivation 
activities of their tenants.

Last fall, Yuba County Superior Court Judge Stephen Berrier ordered 
the Board of Supervisors to revoke a nearly $16,000 nuisance 
abatement penalty assessed on Jon and Amy Messick. That stemmed from 
a lawsuit filed by the Messicks in connection with a marijuana garden 
grown by a tenant on Ardmore Avenue in Olivehurst.

In that case, Yuba County filed an appeal with the Third District 
Court of Appeal. That appeal is still pending.

Both cases came after Yuba County supervisors last year approved a 
tighter set of cannabis cultivation restrictions that ban outdoor 
growing and limit indoor plants to a dozen in a qualified accessory 
structure. It resulted in a deluge of code enforcement complaints and 
responses.

It has been the practice of county supervisors to impose fines on 
property owners, whether they live within view of marijuana gardens 
grown by tenants or not. Owners can be assessed $100 per day per 
violation with each plant considered to be a separate violation.

County voters in June will decide on an initiative calling for a less 
restrictive cultivation ordinance.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom