road_to_ranches_devils_gulch_lawsuit
A lawsuit between Nicasio neighbors over the use of a historic easement has been ruled mostly in favor of Devil's Gulch Ranch. David Briggs

Nicasio rancher Mark Pasternak has a legal right to the single road that leads to Devil’s Gulch Ranch, according to a tentative decision issued by a Marin Superior Court judge late last year. Yet the dispute continues: in a recent filing, Joseph and Kathleen Jolson, whose property sits adjacent to Mr. Pasternak’s on the Road to the Ranches, which rises up from the town square, argued that the tentative ruling was too vague. A settlement conference to resolve lingering issues is scheduled for March 14. In 2013, the Jolsons filed a lawsuit alleging that Mr. Pasternak had no legal right to use the road, which traverses the Jolson’s property on the way to his ranch. The suit questioned if a road easement from 1866, which Mr. Pasternak said clearly gave him the right to use the road, truly referred to the same road that exists today. The Jolsons also asserted that even if an easement exists, Mr. Pasternak has overburdened it. At Devil’s Gulch, Mr. Pasternak and his wife, Myriam Kaplan-Pasternak, raise pigs, run a vineyard, host a YMCA camp for underserved youth and hold parties, tours, retail sales and other events—all efforts to diversify and become financially stable, Mr. Pasternak told the Light. The proposed statement of decision, filed on Dec. 1 by Judge Roy Chernus, said Mr. Pasternak clearly has a legal easement to access the road. Judge Chernus ruled that agricultural operations, the YMCA camp, small parties, a camp open house and an annual Hanukkah party were all reasonable uses. An outdoor dinner series that drew about 300 people over  two days and raised funds for the Pasternaks’ nature and agriculture-oriented educational programs, overburdened the easement, however. The event required busing in attendees and trucking in supplies and workers; according to Mr. Pasternak, it also promoted others agriculturalists as produce from around the county made its way into the dinners. But, Judge Chernus added, “…some participants were seen urinating on plaintiffs’ property. This is not a usual or reasonable use of an easement [without consent].”