Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCP00264, Date: 2023-07-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCP00264 Hearing Date: July 12, 2023 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION FOR ORDER TO ABATE
SUBSTANDARD BUILDING AND APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER is GRANTED,
effective upon proof of service of notice of the hearing.[1]
Background
This is a receivership petition. The City of West Covina
(the “City”) alleges the following against LEO STAVINSKY and BETTY STAVINSKY
(collectively, “Respondents” or “Defendants”): Beginning in March of 2020 and
continuing through to this day, the City has performed several inspections of
the property located at 2516 E. Walnut Creek Parkway in the city of West Covina
(“Subject Property”) and issued the Owners several notices of violations,
administrative citations and notices to appear at office conference letters,
but Defendants have failed to appear and remediate the violations.
On June 15, 2023, the City filed the instant petition.
Legal Standard
“A receiver may be appointed, in
the manner provided in this chapter, by the court in which an action or proceeding
is pending in any case in which the court is empowered by law to appoint a
receiver.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 564, subd. (a).)
The Health and Safety Code authorizes the court to appoint a
receiver to oversee the rehabilitation of properties deemed to be substandard
if the property owner fails to comply with an order or notice issued by a local
agency pursuant to section 17980.6. Health and Safety Code section 17980.6
states, in pertinent part, the following: If any building is maintained in a
manner that violates any provisions of this part, the building standards
published in the State Building Standards Code relating to the provisions…, any
other rule or regulation adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part, or
any provision in the local ordinance that is similar…, and the violations are
so extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents or
the public is substantially endangered, the enforcement agency may issue an
order or notice to repair or abate pursuant to this part. Additionally, Health
and Safety Code section 17980.7(c) states in relevant part the following: If
the owner fails to comply within a reasonable time with the terms of the order
or notice issued pursuant to section 17980.6, the following provisions shall apply:
(c) …the enforcement agency…may seek and the court may order, the appointment
of a receiver for the substandard building pursuant to this subdivision.
Furthermore, the Health and Safety Code states that the court “…shall consider
whether the owner has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to correct the
conditions cited in the notice of violation.” (Health & Safety Code §
17980.7(c)(1); see also City of Crescent City v. Reddy (2017) 9
Cal.App.5th 458, 466 [the circumstances which constitute a “reasonable
opportunity” was addressed.].)
Discussion
Here, the Property has been the subject of the City’s code
enforcement efforts for more than three (3) years. The unlawful, dangerous and
substandard conditions on the Subject Property constitute an immediate threat
to the health, life, and safety of any occupants, nearby residents and the
public, include the following:
(See generally Petition; see also generally Code Decl. [Code
Enforcement Manager for the City of West Covina]; see also Code Decl., Ex. K,
pp. 95-111 of PDF [photos of violations].)
To date, all the violations still exist. (Petition p. 6.)
“In particular, the hoarding of junk, trash and debris presents a life safety
risk to any occupants because such conditions are unsanitary and create a risk
of collapse of the junk piles and block necessary routes of egress during a
fire or other emergency.” (Petition p. 6:20-23.)
Therefore, the facts presented in this Petition and the
numerous violations of law cited in the Notice to Abate demonstrated that the
Subject Property is “substandard” within the meaning of Health and Safety Code
section 17920.3.
As for notice requirements, the City posted the Notice to
Abate and the Owners (or anyone else responsible for the Subject Property) have
failed to take any corrective action, to abate any of the violations or obtain
any permits to bring the Subject Property into full compliance with the law.
(Petition p. 10.)
As for compliance, efforts by the City’s Code Enforcement
Department to gain voluntary compliance with respect to abatement of these
violations have been unsuccessful as the owners are either unable or unwilling
to voluntarily bring the Subject Property into compliance with the law and no
one else responsible for the Subject property has complied.
Thus, the court finds it necessary to grant the petition for
a receiver. The City requests the appointment of Richardson C. Griswold and has
provided the court with a declaration from proposed receiver attesting as to
his qualifications and hourly rate.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the unopposed petition is granted.[2]
[1] Exhibits 3 and 4 of
Lois Moy’s declaration only provide POS of the Notices of Intent, not of the
hearing on this petition.
[2] A proposed order
appointing a receiver has been filed.