County Seeks De la Fuente Bond : Courts: Unusual filing asks that he post an amount equal to millions he wants for land county seized for jail.

San Diego County lawyers say developer Roque de la Fuente II, who beat the county in court for at least $22.9 million over land it took to build the East Mesa jail, should be able to get at the cash only if he pays for the privilege.

In legal papers filed this week in San Diego Superior Court, county attorneys said De la Fuente ought to post a bond exactly equal to the millions he wants. They also said he ought to be forced to pay the usual bond transaction fee, normally 2% a year, which would cost De la Fuente hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

Lawyer David Semelsberger said Friday that the filing is designed to protect the financially ailing county and was done at the direction of the Board of Supervisors.

The judge in charge of the complex case has urged a settlement. But the county’s most recent filing has left De la Fuente and his lawyers “truly outraged,” attorney Michael Thorsnes said Friday.

The county legally snatched the land four years ago, has yet to pay in full for the seizure and appears to want to fight De la Fuente every step of the way, Thorsnes said. He called the new filing “an act of utter spite.”

San Diego Superior Court Judge Jeffrey T. Miller will hold a hearing March 11 on the unusual filing. Miller has pleaded with both sides to settle the case.

After negotiating with De la Fuente for two years, the county took 525 acres from him in 1987 to build the East Mesa jail. The site is surrounded by other De la Fuente holdings near the U.S.-Mexico border, about 7 miles east of Interstate 805. The first phase of the 784-bed jail is nearly complete.

Any governmental body may legally seize land under the eminent domain powers of the U.S. Constitution. But state law says the seizure may occur only after a court deposit of the probable value of the land, in anticipation of a legal fight over its worth. The county originally put up $6.4 million.

Last Sept. 28, a jury fixed the land’s value at $55.6 million, saying it is ideally suited for a jail.

On Dec. 28, Miller said $55.6 million was “excessive” and offered a new trial or a $22.9-million settlement. He based that figure on a review of several commercial and industrial appraisers who testified at the trial.

On Jan. 7, De la Fuente rejected the $22.9-million offer and opted to fight on appeal for all $55.6 million. The appeals process--the case is scheduled to move next to the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego--could take years.

In the meantime, Miller ordered the county to increase its deposit, to $22.9 million. On Feb. 22, the county posted $16.5 million principal to add to the $6.4 million. It also deposited interest on the $16.5 million, for a total of $21.5 million.

De la Fuente immediately asked to be able to use that $21.5 million. But the county said this week that he could have at it only if he posted a $21.5-million bond, even though bonding firms require 100% collateral for that kind of bond, according to the legal papers.

The county, believing it is entitled to a new trial, wants De la Fuente to post the $21.5 million to protect it if the jury in the second trial returns a verdict less than $22.9 million, Semelsberger said Friday.

The bond would cover the difference between that lower amount, whatever it might be, and the $22.9 million, according to the legal papers.

In the meantime, Thorsnes said, it is unfair to deprive De la Fuente of both the property and its value. But that apparently is what the county is trying to do, he said.

The state Constitution guarantees “prompt release” of the deposit to the owner of land that a governmental body has seized, Thorsnes said, but says nothing about a bond.

Testimony at the trial put the value of De la Fuente’s land around the jail site at $40 million to $90 million, Thorsnes said. De la Fuente is willing to use those holdings as collateral, so there is no need for a bond, according to legal papers De la Fuente filed Thursday.

Finally, according to those papers, if the county loses again at a second trial, state law says De la Fuente will be able to bill taxpayers for the running cost of the transaction fee.

On a $20-million deposit, a 2% fee would cost $400,000, according to the legal papers.