LAKEPORT, Calif. – The county of Lake has filed a cross-complaint against the homeowners in north Lakeport's Lakeside Heights, alleging that the subdivision's residents and property owners were responsible for the issues that led last year to a landslide that destroyed homes and resulted in the declaration of a local emergency.
The cross-complaint was filed June 25 by Bradley, Curley, Asiano, Barrabee, Abel and Kowalski PC of Larkspur, the independent firm hired to represent the county in the case.
It names 46 property owners, including the Lakeside Heights Homeowners Association.
The action is part of a larger case filed last fall by the property owners in Lake County Superior Court after the county's liability administrator turned down separate tort claims filed by the property owners, as Lake County News has reported.
The decision to file the cross-complaint was made after the Board of Supervisors emerged from closed session on May 13, according to board minutes.
The minutes showed that Supervisor Anthony Farrington – whose district includes Lakeside Heights – moved to authorize filing the cross-complaint, with the board voting 4-0.
Supervisor Rob Brown, whose daughter and son-in-law own one of the subdivision's damaged homes, was absent for the vote, according to board records. Brown has recused himself from all discussions or actions relating to Lakeside Heights.
When asked by Lake County News about the reasoning behind the cross-complaint and whether the independent firm representing the county had suggested it, County Counsel Anita Grant said she could not answer those questions, citing attorney-client privilege and work product privilege.
Attorney Michael Green of the Santa Rosa law firm Abbey, Weitzenberg, Warren & Emery, who is representing the property owners in their suit, called the cross-complaint “a desperate move by the county to shift fault in this case to the homeowners who have lost everything as a result of the county’s failure to maintain its water utility system.”
He added, “Substantial leaks in the county water system caused the landslide that devastated Lakeside Heights. It is beyond dispute that water introduced to the hillside caused the landslide.”
Randall Fitzgerald, president of the Lakeside Heights Homeowners Association, said of the cross-complaint, “For Lake County government to pull this cynical and desperate legal tactic, suing hardworking taxpayers who face financial ruin because their homes have been destroyed, is a new monument to an old saying, 'adding insult to injury.'”
Two sides lodge allegations
In March 2013, the ground along Lancaster Road, which runs through the 29-home subdivision above Hill Road, began to sink, damaging homes and displacing a number of residents, who found their homeowners insurance wouldn't cover the damages.
The following month, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency.
In the time since, Lake County Special Districts has worked to improve the water and sewer systems, with utility companies reportedly undergrounding utilities in the subdivision. Leaks also were found in the county water systems, but county officials disputed the leaks were enough to cause the landslide.
Geological and engineering studies have been conducted in the area to try to determine how to stabilize the ground and find the sources of the slide, which had stabilized for some time but was reported to have started moving again earlier this year.
To date, two homes that were badly damaged were demolished by a contractor hired by the county; four more houses that have partially or completely fallen, along with a detached garage and a postal shelter, need to be demolished; two other houses that suffered damage continue to be occupied; one house is vacant and for rent; four houses have been foreclosed on by banks and are vacant; with the remaining homes 16 homes said to be occupied, according to residents.
The homeowners have alleged that the landslide and sinkholes that destroyed or damaged the homes began due to leaks in the county's water system in the area. That is a key argument in their lawsuit.
In turn, the county is arguing that the property owners “are responsible directly or vicariously, actively or passively, for the events and happenings herein referred to and caused or are responsible in whole or in part for the damages” sustained by the county.
The causes of action in the cross-complaint include negligence, equitable indemnity, comparative indemnity, declaratory relief and failure of lateral support, or negligence.
“Cross-Defendants, and each of them, at all times owed a duty to maintain their land so that their land would continue to provide lateral support to the public right of way below, and related improvements, owned and maintained by the County of Lake,” the suit states.
The cross-complaint alleges that the homeowners “knew or should have known that landscaping, vegetation, irrigation and uncontained waters on their land could cause soil on their land to lose strength and cause a failure of lateral support on their own property to the public use right of way, and related improvements, maintained and owned by County of Lake, and that landscaping, vegetation, irrigation and uncontained waters on their land should be contained, channeled and/or properly drained to prevent a failure of lateral support on their own property to the public right of way, and related improvements, owned and maintained by the county of Lake, and/or that the soil on their lands should be reinforced and ensure that lateral support would be provided to Cross-Defendants' and/or Cross-Complainants' property.”
Regarding the cross-complaint, Green noted, “My clients are now being sued by the county for simply engaging in standard home maintenance activities like watering their gardens. It should be noted that in spite of the county’s claim in its cross-complaint that my clients 'should have known' that irrigating landscaping on their property could cause a landslide, the truth is that county actually shut off the Lakeside Heights’ irrigation system for the winter approximately four months before the landslide occurred.”
Noting that the county's damages haven't yet been determined, the cross-complaint seeks to have the county be held harmless from any judgment or settlement in the main suit, and to be reimbursed for all legal costs due to defending itself and prosecuting the cross-complaint.
The county also is asking the court for an order determining the comparative degree of fault for each party and the apportionment of their respective responsibility to the county.
A response is due from the property owners by July 30.
Grant told Lake County News that the main part of the case is still in the discovery phase, which is when the sides obtain information and evidence from each other.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.