San Rafael: Years after raging arson fire, no charges, many questions

Sept. 03--Nearly three years after a luxurious hillside mansion in San Rafael went up in flames, many contentious questions remain. But one thing appears to be undisputed: Someone burned the place to ruins and got away with it, thus far.

Authorities have filed no charges in the October 2013 fire at 7 Sea View Drive, despite an extensive investigation by the Marin County Sheriff's Office, fire department inspectors and insurance company specialists. Investigators have released few details about the case, and the final report by the sheriff's department remains unfinished.

However, the fire and the events surrounding it unloosed a geyser of litigation that continues to spray around Marin Superior Court. The copious volumes of litigation, along with recent courtroom testimony, reveal many previously undisclosed facts.

One is that the residence was soaked in accelerant, fueling a fire so intense it overwhelmed the fire suppression system and destroyed everything inside.

Another is that the tenant who was scheduled to be evicted the day of the fire took out a $500,000 renter's insurance policy less than a week earlier. He eventually collected in full, and is suing for additional damages.

"This destroyed our life, financially and personally," the tenant, Fletcher Carson, argued during one of two related civil trials this summer. A third trial is set for November.

The fire occurred on Oct. 22, 2013. The gated property, sitting on a hill near San Rafael High School, is owned by John Lindenmeyer, who bought it about 15 years ago.

In 2012, Lindenmeyer rented the four-bedroom home to Carson, now 65, and his wife Benita Price-Carson, 62. Under the lease agreement, Lindenmeyer agreed to be paid a mix of cash and stock in Carson's company, a tech-related entity called Entirely Different Solutions Inc., according to court documents.

The cash portion of the monthly rent would rise from $7,950 to $11,450 over the four-year lease. Lindenmeyer was to receive 10,000 EDSI shares per month.

Relations sour

The next year, however, a dispute developed between Lindenmeyer and the tenants over who was responsible for the gardening and landscaping, and whether Lindenmeyer improperly had entered the property. A dispute over rent payments also ensued.

Lindenmeyer moved to evict the tenants, and the fight landed in court. A jury decided largely in Lindenmeyer's favor, and the Carsons were ordered to vacate by Oct. 22 after missing a payment deadline to Lindenmeyer.

At about 2 a.m. that day, the home was engulfed in fire. Some three dozen firefighters responded to the two-alarm fire, which was so intense that fire crews quickly assumed a defensive strategy to protect other exposed properties.

Authorities could not find the Carsons at first. A rented U-Haul truck was in the driveway but not the couple's Mercedes, and no bodies were found in the charred home. The couple were located later in the day at the Cliffs Resort in Pismo Beach.

In court documents filed later, Carson said the couple were out of town when the fire happened.

Fire task force

A team of fire investigators was assigned to the case. It included a county sheriff's detective; fire department inspectors from Novato and Tiburon; an inspector for Lindenmeyer's insurer, State Farm; and an inspector for the Carsons' rental insurance provider, USAA.

The team found evidence of gasoline in several areas of the home, including three bedrooms, according to court documents. Some areas on the second floor could not be examined because of unstable or collapsed flooring.

Authorities never named a suspect and were unable to assign criminal culpability for charges. The sheriff's detective on the case, Rebecca Leonard, is still completing the report; she is on limited duty as part of a settlement last year in a sexual harassment and gender discrimination lawsuit she filed against the department.

The statute of limitations for arson is three to six years, depending on the circumstances alleged under various sections of the penal code.

Lawsuits fly

After the fire, several lawsuits and counterclaims were filed. Much of the litigation was driven by Carson, who represented himself and his wife.

Though not a lawyer himself, Carson litigated with tenacity and a considerable amount of sophistication. He holds two master's degrees from Stanford University -- one in operations research and another in industrial engineering -- as well as a bachelor's degree in mathematics from the University of Nevada, Reno, officials at both universities confirm. In court filings, Carson indicated that he served in military intelligence as a U.S. Army lieutenant during the 1970s.

Carson sued Lindenmeyer for alleged negligence and fraud. Among other allegations, Carson claimed Lindenmeyer failed to inspect and maintain an adequate fire suppression system, causing the destruction of more than $1 million worth of the Carsons' personal property.

That case went to trial in July before Judge Paul Haakenson in Marin Superior Court. Fire investigators testified about the accelerant and the massive destruction at the property.

'Litigation lifestyle'

Lindenmeyer's lawyer, Vincent DeMartini, called Carson's credibility into question on numerous levels, saying he lied about his income on his rental application and failed to report his criminal history. Carson served a prison sentence in the 1990s for a bank robbery in Santa Barbara County, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

DeMartini complained that Lindenmeyer's home remains unrestored and unrented while Carson pursues his "ongoing litigation lifestyle."

Carson countered: "This is not about litigation for a living. I do have other things to do with my time."

"We lost 30 years' plus of belongings from my marriage," he added. "What did I come out of this with? I got zip."

Judge Haakenson broached the arson issue, saying it appears that the person who initiated the fire would "more likely than not" be either the property owner or the tenant. He asked whether it would be fair for him to consider this while contemplating his verdict.

"It seems odd to me to close my eyes to the question of who started the fire," Haakenson said.

Carson replied that it would not be fair to consider the question.

Haakenson's ruling came down last month and the judgment became final on Tuesday. He rejected all of Carson's claims.

The ruling, while citing the "thorough and successful efforts of the arsonist," does not explicitly specify who Haakenson thinks the arsonist was. But he wrote that Carson "curiously" took out the renter's insurance policy just days before he was supposed to vacate the home, around the same time the Carsons "suddenly desired" a vacation in Pismo Beach.

Appeal planned

Carson, in an email on Friday, said he will appeal the verdict as flawed and biased. He said the judge "cherry picked evidence" to support a ruling in Lindenmeyer's favor, ignoring overwhelming evidence of failure in the fire suppression system's design and maintenance.

Carson also said the judge should not have speculated on who might have caused the fire, as it could have been anyone.

"That statement was prejudicial, as there was no evidence before the court in any manner regarding the fire...it did not have to be either party...it certainly was not me...in fact it is still under investigation evidently," he wrote.

He added: "The court, in my opinion, picked selected pieces of evidence to support a conclusion that was preordained when the judge asked the parties if he should be able to include in his decision anything related to who set the fire. All parties agreed that the fire was set by arson, but there was NO evidence presented by anyone for any purpose regarding who set the fire."

DeMartini, the lawyer for Lindenmeyer, did not respond to several requests for comment.

Insurance battle

Meanwhile, Carson has more litigation pending against USAA, the provider of the renter's insurance.?After allowing time for the fire investigation, USAA eventually paid the $500,000 renter's policy in full, plus about $60,000 for living expenses and $5,000 for debris removal. Carson is suing for nearly $128,000 more, claiming that USAA's payment delays over about 18 months caused him to rack up additional costs for storage, temporary housing and legal fees.

The delays have "caused additional damages and losses to Plaintiff in not being able to settle his family within in this constant state of turmoil, uncertainty and broken promises," Carson wrote in a 2015 filing.

USAA denies wrongdoing, noting it paid the policy in full despite the suspicious origin of the fire and its timing so soon after the policy was implemented. The insurer also noted that the Carsons were scheduled for eviction the day of the fire, so they have a dubious claim to housing reimbursement in the aftermath.

The insurer, in a statement released by spokesman Roger Wildermuth, said: "USAA has a well known reputation for providing outstanding claims service, and we are committed to paying what we owe in claims while ensuring that only appropriate claims are paid. In this matter, the plaintiff's personal property was destroyed in a fire at property he was renting which led to an investigation by USAA, his landlord's insurer and local law enforcement. Despite this, USAA paid the plaintiff's claim, and no additional payments are justified."

The insurer has also countersued for access to Carson's business records at EDSI. Lawyers for the company want to know how Carson could have accumulated more than $1 million in purported belongings when he has claimed, in other settings, to have derived no income from his tech company.

Carson and USAA are scheduled to go to trial Nov. 15 in Marin Superior Court.

Since leaving San Rafael, Carson and his wife have listed addresses in Monterey and San Luis Obispo. In January, Carson filed for bankruptcy in federal court in San Jose. He declared $12,000 in monthly income from EDSI in "stock-based loans," $12,450 in monthly expenses, $53,646 in liabilities and $22,025 in assets.

The bankruptcy court dismissed his case in June on the grounds that he failed to make his scheduled debt payments.

An earlier bankruptcy case -- in which he declared $836,792 in liabilities against $41,570 in assets -- was resolved in 2006.

___

(c)2016 The Marin Independent Journal (Novato, Calif.)

Visit The Marin Independent Journal (Novato, Calif.) at www.marinij.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.