PDA

View Full Version : Water Wheel Resort And Recreational Area.



1986 Crusader
11-16-2007, 12:19 PM
deleted check other thread

Lightning
11-16-2007, 12:25 PM
I no legal expert but one thing he should have done was open an escrow account at the bank and deposit those checks into the escrow account. He then should have seekend legal advice and determined why they were not cashing his checks. I had a client who rented a building. One day the landlord quit cashing the checks, so she did what I stated above. She was able to determine that the landlord was trying to establish cause to not renew her lease. A few letters from the attorneys and it all got squared away - they now still have a lease 15 years later.

McIntyrelocal
11-16-2007, 12:28 PM
The Colorado River Indian Tribes have moved to evict the manager and lease holder of the Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area, a mobile home park on tribal land in California.
Robert Johnson has managed Water Wheel for several years but his lease ran out in July. The CRIT tribal council evicted Johnson on Oct. 1 and will take over management of the park. CRIT is also seeking damages because Johnson has refused to pay his rent for the last two years, according to CRIT Chairman Daniel Eddy Jr.
“Mr. Johnson has overstayed his lease and he owes the Tribes a substantial sum of money,” Eddy said. “The Tribes have been extremely patient with Mr. Johnson despite his longtime refusal to adhere to the community’s laws as a sovereign nation or to the BIA’s regulation as a federal authority. That patience has come to an end.”
Johnson has also reportedly threatened to evict tenants at the park who wish to pay their rent directly to the tribes instead of him. CRIT Council Member Herman “TJ” Laffoon stressed that the legal action would have no bearing on the residents currently living in the park.
“The Tribes have no intention of terminating the rights of sub-lease holders to be in the park,” Laffoon said. “We hope that they all choose to stay provided that they continue to comply with their rental agreements.”
The Water Wheel lease was originally negotiated 32 years go by the Bureau of Indian Affairs at a price of $100 per acre, or $2,600 a year. Johnson has collected well over a half-million dollars a year in rent over the past six years. Johnson also operates a small shop on the property from which he pays the tribes a percentage of gross sales on alcohol and other goods.
CRIT Attorney General Eric Shepard said that these severely under-market-value leases with the BIA were common many years ago – a sore subject with many tribes that has sparked litigation -- and that one prime property along the banks of the Colorado, for example, is still being leased for $200 a year.
Under the terms of the lease, CRIT and Johnson were to renegotiate the base rent in 2000, adjusting it to the current, fair market rental value of the property. Despite a series of appraisals and negotiations, CRIT and Johnson never reached an agreement on the annual base rent for the last six years of the lease.
The BIA appraised the fair market value at $101,500 per year, while Johnson, having obtained his own appraisal, maintained that the land was worth only $14,503. Johnson paid the Tribes $14,503 in 2001 and 2002, then lowered the rent for himself back to $2,600 a year. In 2006, he quit paying altogether.
According to CRIT records Water Wheel paid the Tribes only $48,710 in base rent over the past seven years and $33,019 in gross sales proceeds for a total of $81,730. During that same period, Shepard estimated that Johnson took in well over $5 million in gross receipts.
You want to know whats funny? the indans are full of s*** and ther are not truthfull. Mr johnson has payed them their money every month, and they refuse to chash the checks
DOES ANY ONE KNOW ANYBODY THAT CAN GET THIS INTO FEDERIAL COURT? IF IT GETS UPHELD IN TRIBAL COURT WE ARE AS GOOD AS DONE BECAUSE (CRIT) COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES RUN THINGS THERE OWN WAY
PLEASE ANY INFORMATION WOULD BE GREAT
Not a dman thing you can do there sovereinty cnt be contested and federal court wont even hear the case. in 97-98 we were screwed to the tune of about 180,000 by the cahullia indians in anza, we paved there whole facility and they just said no we are not going to pay you anything,the federal government said sorry nothing we can do we had 9 other contractors from the same projet that had a supreme court hearing date and it was denied. So we ate it.

Baja Big Dog
11-16-2007, 05:10 PM
Sounds like it time for a casino!!!:confused:

Marty Gras
11-16-2007, 08:25 PM
You know what's funny? The US government forced all of these ORIGINAL AMERICAN PEOPLE onto this land. Some of the land is out in the unused desert and some of the land is ON THE RIVER. The people who made "deals", "rental agreements" are now in question of their rights. The "land owners", seem to be requiring a change in rental agreements, and the expiration date for rental agreements has been met and exceded. Why are there so many problems? If the current contracts are valid, then they are in place! NO PARTY CAN CHANGE THE CONTRACT! If the current contracts are out of date, out of time or in violation of contract, WHY FIGHT? Just because you put up a trailer and a carport, you STILL ARE RENTING THE LAND!!! Grow up, and WAKE UP! It's CRIT land and you (if lucky) are renting it!!! Try doing this in Mexico!

Moneypitt
11-16-2007, 08:33 PM
MG, the dispute is the reservation boundry....The indians own nothing west of the waters edge, according to the original reservation boundry. The Dept of Interior's decision ,1969, was based on water rights, not land. The land grant dates back to 1865 and is quite clear on the boundry, the west edge, where the water meets the land. The indians have been strong arming the people on the Ca side for decades, 35 years.....Illegal evictions, bulldozing access roads, and buildings. The crits own nothing west of the waters edge..........MP

1986 Crusader
11-16-2007, 10:09 PM
You know what's funny? The US government forced all of these ORIGINAL AMERICAN PEOPLE onto this land. Some of the land is out in the unused desert and some of the land is ON THE RIVER. The people who made "deals", "rental agreements" are now in question of their rights. The "land owners", seem to be requiring a change in rental agreements, and the expiration date for rental agreements has been met and exceded. Why are there so many problems? If the current contracts are valid, then they are in place! NO PARTY CAN CHANGE THE CONTRACT! If the current contracts are out of date, out of time or in violation of contract, WHY FIGHT? Just because you put up a trailer and a carport, you STILL ARE RENTING THE LAND!!! Grow up, and WAKE UP! It's CRIT land and you (if lucky) are renting it!!! Try doing this in Mexico!
Really? because i recall this land witch is on the western bank BLM land? and indains takeing it over in 69? :rolleyes: