Judge orders City back into court on Fuhrman land use appeal

Former City Council member Tom Fuhrman continues to fight for rights on his Menifee ranch. Menifee 24/7 file photo

Story has been corrected to indicate that the $30,000 paid by Fuhrman to the City of Menifee was for permit fees.

Former City Council member and local rancher Tom Fuhrman and the City of Menifee will be back in court Oct. 1 in an attempt to resolve a land use dispute that has cost the City well over half a million dollars in legal fees the past five years.

City legal representatives have been ordered back into court by writ of mandate issued by Riverside Superior Court judge Raquel Marquez. This is essentially an appeal by Fuhrman of a previous judge's ruling upholding City Council members' decision against their former colleague.

At issue is the interpretation of a city ordinance regarding exemptions from business licenses for "commercial agricultural operations". Fuhrman, who raises and boards horses on his sprawling Wooden Nickel Ranch, contends that the City won't give him a business license, yet also refuses to grant him an exemption, saying his ranch does not qualify as a commercial agricultural operation.

Fuhrman has been fined multiple times in recent years for hosting events such as scout meetings and weddings on his property.

Fuhrman's original lawsuit was based on his claim that the City would only grant him a Conditional Use Permit for such events, and only then if he made about $200,000 of improvements he says has not been required of other horse ranch owners in Menifee. Fuhrman's attorney, Ben Hamilton of San Diego law firm Hamilton & McInnis, said he believes Fuhrman has paid more than $30,000 in permit fees to the City.

Meanwhile, the legal battle has now turned into a series of appeals and a civil lawsuit filed by Fuhrman, stating he is being singled out for standing up to the City to fight a ruling he believes is wrong. In continuing to fight Fuhrman in court, the City of Menifee paid a total of $476,226.14 in legal fees to three law firms from 2012-16, according to public records. Menifee 24/7 this week made a public records request for additional legal fees charged the City from 2016 to present.

"Tom wanted a business license exemption under the agricultural ordinance," Hamilton said. "He's boarding horses, renting out stalls for boarding.

"They said he has to have a CUP. That flies in the face of common sense. They're saying raising horses is not agricultural in nature, that he's simply running a commercial enterprise."

In a June 3, 2016 ruling, judge Janet Kintner ruled in favor of the City of Menifee, despite writing in her judgement that "I wish I didn't have to do anything at all with this" and "The City should not be keeping Mr. Fuhrman from being able to get a license and being able to have weddings." Further, Kintner wrote that then-City Manager Rob Johnson "was not believable" in his testimony and that "evidence indicates the City is not treating Mr. Fuhrman fairly. One of the major problems is the mayor's emails, which indicate a great deal of animosity and too much focus on Mr. Fuhrman."

Those reservations in Kintner's ruling resulted in Fuhrman's appeal. In an Aug. 30 tentative ruling on the writ of mandate, judge Marquez granted Fuhrman's petition demanding the City reconsider his application.

In her ruling, Marquez wrote that "the City of Menifee has misinterpreted its own Municipal Code and failed to give petitioner a neutral appeal panel to consider the basis for the denial."

According to Hamilton, Marquez has requested that a panel of independent fact finders study the appeal before she makes her ruling.

"It should be up to the parties to agree on that panel," Hamilton said. "It's a procedural thing. I believe the plan was to pick three neutral parties, but there was the thought that maybe a couple of panel members would be City Council members. We were informed the City Council was not willing to get involved."

Tom Fuhrman built a "ghost town" on his ranch property with artifacts salvaged from the nearby Audie Murphy Ranch before it was demolished.

Menifee City Attorney Jeffrey Melching confirmed that is the case.

"I can confirm that someone from my office spoke with Mr. Fuhrman’s attorney last week," Melching wrote in an email to Menifee 24/7. "In that conversation, Mr. Fuhrman’s attorney was informed that the City would prefer to use only neutral arbitrators that are unaffiliated with the City – not City Council members – on this matter.

"The reason for the City’s position is simple. We are aware that Mr. Fuhrman has repeatedly asserted that bias exists toward him by City Council members. While we strongly deny that assertion, it would be truly unfortunate to complete yet another hearing on this matter (in addition to the planning staff review, the prior City Council hearing on this matter, and the court proceedings to date) only to experience still another claim by Mr. Fuhrman that the process was somehow unfair."

Fuhrman said he believes the City's efforts to deny him an exemption and issue multiple citations is the result of a vendetta against him by Scott Mann, whom Fuhrman defeated for a City Council seat in 2010. Within a month after Mann's re-election to the City Council as mayor in the fall of 2012, he began working with City Manager Johnson to find any violation possible on Fuhrman's ranch, Fuhrman said.

In October 2014, Fuhrman was arrested by investigators from the District Attorney's Office as he walked off the field from a senior league softball game at Wheatfield Park. He was charged with eight counts, including one felony. Fuhrman was accused of conflict of interest for voting as a city council member on issues in which he had a financial interest.

Fuhrman insists Mann was guilty of the same thing when he participated in the council vote to deny Fuhrman's appeal.

In July 2015, Fuhrman entered into an agreement to postpone his plea for one year. He was scheduled to enter a plea in July 2016 once he had completed 100 hours of community service, at which time the felony count would be dropped. Before that time had expired, however, Fuhrman was found in violation of the plea agreement because of an event he held on his property that the city deemed a violation.

"This all stems from Scott Mann sitting on the dais, and he was so intent on making sure that I didn’t win that appeal," Fuhrman said. "He sat as a judge and committed a conflict of interest violation himself. He ordered [code enforcement] to issue the citation I’m appealing. He wouldn’t recuse himself because he wanted to make sure the vote would go against me. He bullied the council into voting against me."

At the time of Fuhrman's initial allegations against Mann and Johnson, both declined comment because of the pending litigation.

Hamilton said there is plenty of evidence to show that Fuhrman is being singled out for punishment.

"We know the City hadn't gone after anyone else," Hamilton said about other ranchers operating without a CUP or violations. "The City has all but admitted that. Now they've started going after all the ranchers because, with this lawsuit bringing the issue to light, they have to. They're scrambling to make it look like they're being fair to everyone.

"This stems from a grudge with the mayor, and the City ran with it, even after the mayor was gone. Not until new council members came in did it seem that maybe they will change their tune.

"In the writ of mandate, we would like to reach a settlement. In the civil rights case, we intend to show a pattern -- that Tom's case was almost approved, then Scott Mann was elected, and suddenly we were back to square one. We will show that the city manager and the mayor were personally involved, telling code enforcement to write him up. You'd think they'd have more important things to do than go after Tom."

Melching said the City of Menifee remains willing to reach a settlement with Fuhrman.

"I want to stress that the City has never sued Mr. Fuhrman," Melching said. "It has only been a defendant in the two lawsuits initiated by Mr. Fuhrman – the one resolved in favor of the City earlier this year, concerning the illegal events on Mr. Fuhrman’s property, and the one that is the subject of your inquiry.

"Nevertheless, the City has been and remains open to a reasonable settlement discussion with Mr. Fuhrman. In fact, the City is currently engaged in such discussions. Because those discussions are ongoing, the City has no public comment on those negotiations at this time."