Laserfiche WebLink
12/29/2006 17:08 120994" '18 PAGE 04 <br /> 1 Testimony was received that, and the Court finds, that within Stockton adjacent <br /> 2 property owners typically use the sidewalk area as if it were merely an easement to pass, <br /> 3 installing underground facilities for their own benefit. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 A previous owner of defendant's property operated a taxi barn at the location and <br /> 6 the tank gives the appearance of being used for oil storage. <br /> 7 <br /> g The County argues that Defendant, having purchased the taxi barn real property <br /> 9 also now owns the tank and consequently owes the fees. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 On the other hand, the only direct evidence regarding ownership, possession and <br /> 12 use was testimony that Defendant was not aware of the tank's existence when the property <br /> 13 was purchased, that the tank was not purchased and was never used by defendant. No <br /> 14 evidence was offered showing any physical connection between the tank and the <br /> 15 defendant's's business, e.g., pipes or wires_ <br /> 16 <br /> 17 The parties were given an opportunity to submit further evidence or authority by <br /> is mail. Plaintiff offered a letter from the City Public Works Department which suggests City <br /> 19 Ordnance imposes a duty of maintenance on an adjacent property owner. The Court's <br /> 20 research of City Codes yielded only Section 5-900, Part XXIII, which imposed a duty with <br /> 21 respect to the visible uses of adjacent areas by property owners. <br /> 22 ` <br /> 23 Wherefore, judgment for Defendant. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 <br /> 26 F. CLARK SUFY FS, Judge <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> - 2 - <br />