Judge gives two weeks for closing arguments in Groene home lawsuit

In the next two weeks, Steve Groene and attorneys for the Shasta Groene Charitable Trust will submit written arguments in order to determine if Groene will be evicted from a house volunteers built for his daughter.

The trial to evict Groene ended uneventfully after less than an hour Thursday morning in Coeur d’Alene’s First District Court.

Groene, who represented himself, asked the court for directions on how to submit his closing arguments. Judge Rich Christensen explained the process and that the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to counter whatever he submits.

Thursday was the last day of a truncated three-day trial, after skipping a day to allow Groene, the defendant, to have his daughter, Shasta, flown to Coeur d’Alene to testify on her dad’s behalf.

Shasta, who is now 21, was unable to attend, however, because is on probation after pleading guilty in Canyon County to two counts of injury to a child for leaving methamphetamine close to a 1-year-old.

In all, the trial lasted about 5 hours, with Groene — who did not hire an attorney — putting on a defense for less than 30 minutes.

Shasta was 8 years old when she and her 9-year-old brother Dylan were abducted by Joseph Duncan after he killed their older brother, their mother and her fiance with a hammer at the family’s Coeur d’Alene home.

Duncan killed Dylan at a Montana campsite, and was arrested at a Denny’s restaurant after returning with Shasta to Coeur d’Alene.

The horrific incident resulted in a flood of contributions to help Shasta overcome her trauma, resulting in the formation of the charitable trust, which paid for a house for Shasta.

In the lawsuit, Groene contends that he has a legal interest in the house at 2323 E. French Gulch. He claims the house was built for Shasta by trustees who used his homelessness and medical conditions as a marketing tool to raise money and solicit donations to buy the land and build the house.

Its assessed value is $240,000.

Groene claimed he had an oral agreement with a member of the trust allowing his information to be telecast, in exchange for an interest in the house.

As part of his defense this week, Groene wanted his daughter to verify a notarized letter in which she asked the trust to turn over her interest in the house to her father. The court initially ruled the letter was hearsay, and denied allowing the letter as evidence, before giving Groene a day to produce his daughter as a witness.

But attorneys for the Shasta Groene Charitable Trust said her testimony would not have mattered. Trustees contend neither Shasta’s nor her father’s name are on the property deed, which is held by the trust.

“I don’t think Shasta’s presence would have made any difference,” attorney Scott Poorman told the court. “She doesn’t have any interest in the property.”

Despite being the beneficiary of the trust, Poorman said, Shasta Groene, has no ownership of the property where she briefly lived with her father — and where Steve Groene has resided for more than a decade.

But Groene contended the house was built for both father and daughter, and should remain in their family indefinitely.

Groene complained to the court that his lack of knowledge about legal procedures stymied his defense.

“I am not an attorney, that’s what it boils down to,” Groene said. “I am not capable of defending myself.”

Christensen said earlier in the trial that Groene had been given a year to hire an attorney and prepare for trial. Groene was briefly represented by Richard Kuck of Coeur d’Alene.

Christensen gave Groene two weeks to file written closing arguments, and gave the trust an additional week to rebut, before saying he would take the matter under advisement.