Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> James L.L. Barton. P.G. <br /> April 13. 2007 <br /> Page 12 of 14 <br /> codified in California in the Civil Code(in addition to the Porter-Cologne Act). <br /> Sections 3479-3508.2 of the Civil Code defines what acts constitute a common law <br /> nuisance(§3479) and the liability of successive owners(53483). <br /> My client is not a "successor property owner" within the meaning of 0483, <br /> Civil Code,because she is not a successor property owner who failed to abate a <br /> nuisance. <br /> The only basis to support the definition in 23 CCR §2720 as including <br /> successor owners—where the Porter-Cologne Act only refers to dischargers. and <br /> those who threaten a discharge— is in the doctrine in nuisance law holding successive <br /> owners liable for"maintaining'a nuisance. <br /> And. so Section 3483 of the Civil Code states: <br /> "Every successive owner of property who neglects to abate a continuing <br /> nuisance upon, or in the use of, such property, created by a former owner, is <br /> liable therefore in the same manner as the one who first created it." <br /> During all the time that my client owned the property, whatever"nuisance" <br /> existed was being"abated." She did not neglect to abate a continuing nuisance. She � <br /> did not know of the release until after she inherited the property. <br /> The law of nuisance has never been that someone who sold property ►vhile a <br /> tenant was abating a nuisance will be inane liable 8 pears later to file a latit-suit � <br /> against the current owner to gain access ani!coninience work to "abate"the <br /> "nuisance. " "The lav never requires impossibilities." CC 53531. <br /> 1n other words, my client cannot be considered a"guarantor' eight(8) years <br /> after she sold the property of the then default by a party who was abating a continuing <br /> nuisance. The only person that can logically and legally be considered to be <br /> "responsible parties"are Interstate Brands, which filed for bankruptcy court k <br /> protection in 2004. and the current owner. Mr. Kong, who purchased the property in <br /> 2003. In fact, it is only Mr. Kong who stands to benefit from any"abatement" and it <br /> is he to whom the State and the County should look. j <br /> i <br /> My client should be removed from the list of"responsible parties" for this <br /> property. Section 13304 of the Water Code does not allow her to be so designated. 4 <br /> nor does Section 3483 of the Civil Code. The State courts would not find her to be a <br /> responsible party because she never `caused or permitted" a discharge. <br /> i <br /> I <br />