Here are the materials in Donato v. Pereyma (Cal. App.):
from the opening brief:
Rancho Ballena Road is, and at all relevant times was, Indian trust land, owned by the United States of America in trust for the Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation (hereinafter the “Tribe”). Rancho Ballena Road is part of a parcel which was conveyed to the Tribe in 1998 (AA p. 027-030) and, in 2002, accepted by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. (AA p. 031-035) n1.
[2]
Rancho Ballena Road is located in the unincorporated area of Ramona, California, and provides access from Highway 78 East to eleven (11) separate parcels of land, including those parcels owned by Appellant, Respondent, and the other defendants to the underlying action.
In 2008, Respondent, Sergey Pereyma (“Pereyma”), took it upon himself to improve 1330 linear feet Rancho Ballena Road at a cost of $ 148,484.34. (AA p. 053, lns. 1-3). Pereyma had no authority or consent from the Tribe, Congress, or the United States Secretary of the Interior to perform any work to the road.
In November 2009, Sergey Pereyma (“Pereyma”) sued Appellant and the other parcel owners for specific performance of a County of San Diego Covenant of Improvements Requirements (“CIR”) from the late 1970s and early 1980s. (AA p. 051, lns. 27-28; AA p. 054, lns. 4-6 & 18-19). The CIR was in effect years prior to Rancho Ballena Road becoming Indian trust land. Pereyma sued for specific performance of the CIR and also sued under Civil Code Section 845 for contribution for his costs of improvements to the road. (AA p. 001-008)
In his complaint, Pereyma contends that in 2008, the County of San Diego required him to [3] improve said 1330 linear feet of Rancho Ballena Road as a condition to issue a building permit to Pereyma to legalize and remodel the existing residence on the Pereyma parcel. (AA p. 002, lns. 16-18). Pereyma alleges that the County refused to grant the permits because the subject eleven (11) parcels, including the Pereyma parcel, were subject to the CIR, recorded on November 17, 1980, affecting Appellant’s parcel. (AA p. 005, lns. 11-21).
Appellant does not dispute that before Rancho Ballena Road became Indian trust land, the CIR required the parcel owners using Rancho Ballena Road to improve the road before any building permits would be issued. At the time of the CIR, Rancho Ballena Road was not owned by the Tribe. (AA p. 005, lns. 15-21; AA p. 009-016). It is undisputed that when Pereyma applied for his building permits to legalize and improve his residence, Rancho Ballena Road was held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe. It is undisputed that Pereyma made improvements to Rancho Ballena Road at a time when it was Indian trust land.
During the trial below, there was no evidence presented or admitted showing that Pereyma obtained permission from the Tribe [4] or the United States to improve the road. The trial court found that none of the defendants, including Appellant, were notified of the work of improvement or agreed to the road improvements made by Pereyma. (AA p. 053, lns. 9-15).
No evidence was presented at trial establishing ownership of Rancho Ballena Road or whether the improvements were authorized by the Tribe. The only evidence at trial was oral testimony from co-defendant, John Mallon, that Rancho Ballena Road was currently owned by the Mesa Grande Indian Tribe. n2 No title instruments or recorded documents were presented at trial to show ownership of record or vesting of title as to Rancho Ballena Road.
After a bench trial was concluded, on May 2, 2011, Appellant filed objections to the Statement of Intended Decision (AA p. 037-044) which, for the first time, raised the issue that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the [5] dispute concerning Indian land. (AA p. 045-049). However, no proof was submitted in support of the assertion that Rancho Ballena Road was, indeed, Indian trust land.
On June 9, 2011, the court issued its Statement of Decision (AA p. 050-057). The court found, at paragraph 30, that the Mesa Grande Tribe owns land adjacent to the Laird property and that the Tribe uses Rancho Ballena Road to access that parcel. (AA p. 055). There was no finding that the Tribe owned Rancho Ballena Road. At paragraph 31, the court found that the Tribe is not an indispensable party to the action. (AA p. 055). The finding was based upon the Tribe owning land which is accessed by using Rancho Ballena Road, not because the Tribe is the owner of Rancho Ballena Road.
On July 13, 2011, the court entered judgment against Appellant and the other defendants, ordering that Appellant pay to Pereyma the sum of $ 16,069.73 as a proportionate contribution for the work performed on Rancho Ballena Road, in conformity with the court’s Statement of Decision. (AA p. 058-059).
On August 17, 2011, Appellant filed a Substitution of Attorney representing self for purposes of this Appeal. (AA p. 067).
Turtle Talk 
One thought on “Briefs in California COA Case Involving Dispute over Improvements to Tribal Road Held in Trust”
Comments are closed.