A legal squabble over a Ventura office building at California and Santa Clara streets that houses the California Coastal Commission was back in court this week, and those involved expect it to go to trial this year.

The Henning family trust contends it owns the entire building at 89 S. California St. as part of a lease deal signed more than 50 years ago. The building was constructed on two parcels of land, one of them owned by Ventura Realty Co.

After the two property owners tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a settlement, the Hennings sued Ventura Realty in 2007. The realty company also had a lease agreement dating back to 1987 involving the building.

On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Glen Reiser issued a tentative ruling regarding some liability issues in the case.

The 19,000-square-foot building, at the northwest corner of California and Santa Clara, houses offices of the Coastal Commission and a temporary storefront location of the Museum of Ventura County. It formerly housed a Bank of America branch and the Ventura Visitors & Convention Bureau.

The legal spat appears headed for trial because both sides seem to be firm in their positions, said Ventura Realty’s lawyer, Gary Roach of Ventura. He said the two sides have been “fairly well unable to resolve it” even though Ventura Realty offered to buy all or part of the building.

The judge set a mandatory settlement conference for Jan. 26 to try again to get all parties to find an acceptable solution.

According to the lawsuit, John and Margueritte Henning agreed in 1956 to lease for 50 years a downtown parcel to the then-Bank of Italy, which later became Bank of America.

For the first 20 years, Bank of America would pay $200 in monthly rent. For the next 30 years, the rent would go up $50, to $250 a month.

In exchange, Bank of America agreed to build and deliver “a modern bank building of first-class design” at the end of the 50-year lease.

The lease ended on schedule in 2007, but not before Bank of America agreed to transfer an interest in the building to Ventura Realty in 1987.

According to papers filed with the court, Ventura Realty was aware that more than 3,000 square feet of the bank building was on an adjacent parcel when it signed the 1987 agreement with Bank of America. The realty company then purchased that adjacent parcel, where the bank’s vault, restrooms and utilities were situated. Ventura Realty refuses to give up that section of the building to the Hennings because it owns the underlying property.

Roach argued in court that Ventura Realty’s ownership of the adjacent parcel trumps the Hennings’ rights to receive a complete building. He said Ventura Realty wants to build a wall between the two parcels, which is unacceptable to the Hennings.

The Hennings also named Bank of America as a defendant in the lawsuit. William Miller of San Francisco, an attorney representing Bank of America, blames Ventura Realty for dragging the bank into the lawsuit over the realty company’s failure to comply with the lease agreement.

In legal papers filed with the court, Miller states that Bank of America didn’t have a clue that Ventura Realty would refuse to honor terms of the 1956 lease agreement. He contends Ventura Realty assumed it would just buy the building from the Hennings after the 50-year lease ended.

After realizing the Hennings had no interest in selling, Ventura Realty then raised the legal defense that it owned the building’s utilities, vault and restrooms, according to Miller.

On Tuesday, the judge ruled that unless Ventura Realty disappears or ceases to exist, Bank of America isn’t liable for the current dilemma between the Hennings and the realty company.

The Hennings’ lawyer, Marc Mazer with the law firm of Benjamin, Weill & Mazer of San Francisco, called the whole thing a “mess,” telling the judge the roof needs to be replaced but extends onto the property owned by Ventura Realty.