Beach access lawsuit filed in Incline |

Beach access lawsuit filed in Incline

Kevin MacMillan
Nevada Appeal News Service

Crystal Bay resident Steve Kroll filed another beach access-driven lawsuit Friday with the first District Court of Nevada against the Incline Village General Improvement District and its five trustees as defendants.

The suit is intended to replace the original lawsuit Kroll filed March 4, which named IVGID, trustees Bea Epstein, Gene Brockman, Chuck Weinberger, Bob Wolf and John Bohn and 20 “Doe” defendants as the 26 defendants in the case.

Friday’s lawsuit is a more enhanced version of the original lawsuit, which made 13 separate demands for action from the court. The new piece of litigation includes some of the 13 claims, enhancing some to stiffer penalty requests, and also includes additional requests – 18 in all.

One of the new points Kroll stresses in the litigation is the district violated the Open Meeting Law by holding a “non-meeting” on Nov. 8, 2006, and that the court recognize IVGID made the violation.

Some of the other significant demands Kroll makes in the enhanced version are as follows.

• For punitive and exemplary damages of $1,000 each against defendants Bohn, Brockman, Epstein, Weinberger and Wolf (up $900 from the original demand of $100 for each trustee, besides Bohn, which the original request was for $500 in damages from him), and for punitive damages against the “Doe” defendants in a sum in excess of $10,000.

• For an order that all actions of IVGID, after adopted by the trustees, must be reduced to writing after being properly adopted pursuant to law.

• For an order reversing IVGID’s ruling against the plaintiff in its capacity as a public utility and requiring it to charge excess water charges to the beach properties until and unless those properties become “accessible to the public,” and to repay all unpaid excess water charges to date with statutory interest, and to refund Kroll his proportionate share of that sum.

Kroll declined comment, saying he lawsuit explains it all, though he did say the defendants have until April 18 to respond.