City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez

• Decision Date: 19 May 2008
• Docket Number: No. S145571.,S145571.
• Citation: 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 483,43 Cal. 4th 905,182 P.3d 1027
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Guillermo GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. Guillermo Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, Respondent; City of Santa Monica, Real Party in Interest.

182 P.3d 1027

76 Cal.Rptr.3d 483

43 Cal. 4th 905

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Guillermo GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Guillermo Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, Respondent;

City of Santa Monica, Real Party in Interest.

No. S145571.

Supreme Court of California.

May 19, 2008.

The Law Office of Stan Stern and Stan Stern, Santa Monica, for Defendant and Appellant and for Petitioner.

Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney, and Adam Radinsky, Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent and for Real Party in Interest.

Mark S. Adams, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent and Real Party in Interest.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Scott A. Edelman, Brett H. Oberst, Michael E. Byerts, Los Angeles, Karmen C. Schmid, Michael Anthony Brown, San Francisco; Michelle Williams Court, Los Angeles, Mitchell A. Kamin, Wendy Marantz Levine, Elissa Barrett; Betsy Handler; Toby J. Rothschild, Long Beach, T.E. Glenn; Steve Arredondo, Naeli Jeon; David S. Pallack, Pacoima, Stephanie E. Haffner; Daniel Grunfeld, Lisa Jaskol; Gary B. McGaha, Kenneth W. Babock and Alexis A. Penn-Loya for Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Coalition for Economic Survival, Inner City Law Center, Inquilinos Unidos, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, Public Counsel, Public Law Center and SAJE as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent and Real Party in Interest.

No appearance for Respondent Superior Court.

David J. Pasternak as Receiver and Respondent.

BAXTER, J.

Sections 17980.6 and 17980.7 of the Health and Safety Code¹ compose a statutory scheme providing certain remedies to address substandard residential housing that is unsafe to occupy. Pursuant to section 17980.6, an enforcement agency may issue a notice to an owner to repair or abate property conditions that violate state or local building standards and substantially endanger the health and safety of residents or the public. Section 17980.7 provides that, if the owner fails to comply with the notice despite having been afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so, the enforcement agency may seek judicial appointment of a receiver to assume control over the property and remediate the violations or take other appropriate action. We granted review in this matter to address issues regarding the construction and application of these statutory provisions.

Examination of the legislative intent underlying these statutes leads us to conclude that an enforcement agency's failure to fully comply with the requirements specified in section 17980.6 does not necessarily invalidate a receiver's appointment under section 17980.7, and that the particular instances of noncompliance here did not invalidate the receivership orders on appeal. We also find that, in view of all the circumstances presented, the trial court below acted well within its discretion in authorizing the receiver to forgo rehabilitation of the substandard property at issue and to instead contract for demolition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The relevant facts, as stated in the Court of Appeal opinion and ascertained from our own review of the record, are as follows.

Guillermo Gonzalez is the owner of the real property located at 2438 Ocean Park Boulevard in Santa Monica, California. The property consists of a two-story house and a garage that has been converted into a separate dwelling unit. Gonzalez lives with his family on the first floor of the house, and he rents to tenants who occupy the garage and to various others who pay to use bunk beds on the house's second floor. The area under the staircase landing also is rented out as a separate living space.

For more than 15 years, the property has been in an extremely unsafe and unsanitary condition that endangers its occupants and neighbors. In August 1989, the City of Santa Monica (the City) filed a civil nuisance lawsuit against Gonzalez, alleging violations of the uniform building, fire, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical codes. The City obtained a default judgment requiring Gonzalez to demolish certain structures built without permits. The judgment authorized the City to do the demolition work itself if Gonzalez did not do so within 45 days. In January 1991, the City did the demolition work at a cost of $21,939.93. The City recorded a lien against the property and recovered that cost when Gonzalez refinanced the property.

In May 1997, the City filed an 85-count misdemeanor criminal complaint against Gonzalez for violations of the building, fire, housing, plumbing, and electrical codes. Gonzalez pled guilty to 15 of the counts. The court placed him on probation and ordered him to correct all code violations within 30 days. He failed to do so, and the court repeatedly found him in contempt and sentenced him to serve jail time. In 1998, Gonzalez was taken into custody and spent a total of 280 days in jail for refusing to correct the code violations on his property.

After receiving information from its fire department, the City again inspected the property in January 2001 and found numerous continuing code violations. In May 2001, the City filed a second criminal complaint against Gonzalez. This complaint contained 32 misdemeanor counts for code violations, many of which were identical to those in the first criminal case. Gonzalez pled nolo contendere to six of the counts, and was ordered to correct all code violations on the property by May 15, 2002. The court's order authorized the City to enter the property and abate the violations if Gonzalez did not do so, and specified that any violations remaining uncorrected after 30 days would be deemed a public nuisance without the necessity of further hearing, order, or action by the City. The court placed Gonzalez on probation until April 2005.

On May 15, 2002, representatives from the City's building and safety department inspected the property pursuant to the trial court order. Once again they found numerous continuing code violations. On May 23, 2002, the City personally served Gonzalez with a "Notice and Order to Comply," dated May 21, 2002 (hereafter sometimes the May 21, 2002 Notice). This document listed all the outstanding violations and stated that Gonzalez was "hereby directed to obtain the required permits from the Building and Safety Division, and make the necessary repairs. A re-inspection will be conducted on June 20, 2002, to ensure compliance with this notice. [¶] Pursuant to . . . Court Order, if you fail[ ] to comply with this notice the City of Santa Monica will take actions to make the necessary corrections to eliminate the described deficiencies, and any other that may exist at the property."

Two years later, on June 21, 2004, city inspectors conducted a followup inspection of the property and found that none of the code violations in the May 21, 2002 Notice had been corrected. On June 30, 2004, the city attorney filed a declaration of probation violation based on Gonzalez's failure to correct the code violations. On November 17, 2004, the court found Gonzalez in violation of his probation.

Pursuant to section 17980.7, subdivision (c) (section 17980.7(c)), on December 6, 2004, the City filed the instant "Petition for Appointment of Receiver and Other Relief." The petition alleged that numerous serious code violations on the property presented a substantial threat to the health and safety of the residents and the nearby community. These included: accumulation of combustible debris and rubbish in the exterior of the property (U. Fire Code, § 1103.2.1); use of temporary extension cords in place of permanent approved wiring (id., § 8506.1; Nat. Electrical Code, § 400-8); no heating in the units (Cal. Building Standards Code, § 310.11; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24); renting out multiple beds on the second floor in violation of permissible occupancy rules and prior court orders (Cal. Building Standards Code, § 310.1; Santa Monica Mun.Code, § 8.08.030); accumulation of litter and debris and failure to maintain the property in a safe and sanitary condition (Health & Saf.Code, § 17920.3, subd. (j); Santa Monica Mun.Code, § 7.48.070); failure to have operable and proper windows in all sleeping rooms (Cal. Building Standards Code, § 310.4); nonoperational and unregistered vehicles parked in the backyard (Santa Monica Mun.Code, § 8.96.220); and maintaining an attractive nuisance (§ 17920.3, subd. (c); Santa Monica Mun.Code, § 8.96.050). The petition alleged that all previous efforts to compel Gonzalez to correct the violations had failed and that a receiver was necessary to abate the serious code violations. Concurrent with its petition, the City filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin Gonzalez from encumbering or transferring the property pending a hearing on the City's separately filed notice and motion for appointment of a receiver to take possession.²

On December 6, 2004, the trial court issued the temporary restraining order and set the City's motion for appointment of a receiver for a hearing on January 6, 2005. On December 9, Gonzales was personally served with notice of this motion, in which the City contended it was "likely" the receiver and the court might order "complete demolition of the structures" on the property due to their "extreme and chronic unsafe conditions" and the comparative costs of rehabilitation and demolition.

Gonzalez appeared at the scheduled January 6, 2005 hearing without an attorney and without having filed an opposition to the petition and motion. He claimed: "My attorney was supposed to be here. But, apparently, he had some other things to do." The court stated for the record that it had not heard from the attorney, and proceeded with the hearing in his absence. The court then explained to Gonzalez that due to his continued...