SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Ms. Barbara L. Evoy, Fund Sef • November 7,2002 Page 4 of 6 REMEDY REQUESTED Claimant requests that the Fund Chief review all of the facts and circumstances as stated below and the reimbursement application, and find that the Claimant is eligible for reimbursement from the Fund for cleanup of the property located at 75 East Alpine Avenue in Stockton. STATEMENT OF REASONS This, in our opinion, is not a black and white issue as the Fund Manager's decision implies. The Manager's decision states that the Claimant was not the owner or operator of the tanks and therefore is not eligible for reimbursement. He further states that the Trust had no intent in acquiring the property. We disagree. We believe that there are two main reasons in support of our contention that Claimant should be eligible for reimbursement from the Fund: A. Equitable Owner of Property The Guido Segarini Trust (Trust) loaned Theresa Marler Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) in order to fund the removal of the USTs on the Property located at 75 East Alpine Avenue in Stockton. The loan, being the approximate value of the Property, was secured by a deed of trust on the Property. Therefore, while the tanks were on the Property, the Guido Segarini Trust became the equitable owner of the Property and tanks. Theresa Marler used the money to remove the tanks in 1994. Subsequently, contamination was found on the Property and instead of instigating cleanup of the contamination, Theresa Marler disappeared. We have conducted a diligent and comprehensive search for her whereabouts, as well as any previous owner or operator of the USTs, but have been unsuccessful. The Trust foreclosed on the deed of trust and legal title vested in the Trust in 1998. Claimant's argument is that upon obtaining a deed of trust on the property, the Trust became the equitable owner of the property and USTs. Equitable owner is defined as one who is recognized in equity as the owner of property. There may be two `owners" in respect to the same property, one the nominal or legal owner, the other the beneficial or equitable owner. The Fund regulations do not distinguish between the two, they simply state"owner." While the State Water Resources Control Board ("Board") has not published a decision with these exact facts, there is an opinion with similar facts. In this opinion, the petitioner entered into a purchase agreement and the Board found that equitable title passed to him at that point, although legal title did not pass until the close of escrow, thereby reimbursing the costs of the cleanup work performed prior to the close of escrow, which is prior to legal title vesting in him. (In the Matter of the Petition of Quaker State Corporation, Order No. WQ 97-06-UST p. 5 n. 1) Similarly, in the case at hand, the Trust \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\1818-001 USS\26055.doc