City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 182 P.3d 1027 (2008)

Citation: City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 182 P.3d 1027 (2008)
Parent Document: City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 182 P.3d 1027 (2008)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2008-05-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2567465/city-of-santa-monica-v-gonzalez/ ↗

Full Text

1,583 chars

Over a month later, the receiver filed an application for issuance of an order authorizing him to take specified actions, including (1) entering into a loan commitment agreement and borrowing funds; (2) entering into a contract to demolish the structure on the property; (3) paying relocation benefits to the tenants on the property; and (4) paying Gonzalez $2,000 per month for living expenses as long as he does not interfere with the receivership. Based on bids the receiver obtained, the application represented that rehabilitation of the structure would cost approximately $145,000, which would yield a property worth $450,000 and result in equity of approximately $305,000. Alternatively, demolition of the current structure would cost $54,000, which would yield a lot worth $509,000 and result in equity of $455,000. Thus, the property would be worth $59,000 more as a vacant lot ($509,000) than with its existing structures after correction of the code violations ($450,000), and the equity in the property after demolition ($455,000) would be nearly 50 percent higher than the equity if the structures were repaired ($305,000). In presenting this information, the receiver cautioned the court it was “more likely that the estimated rehabilitation cost will increase significantly as additional problems are discovered as the work progresses, and it would result in significantly greater costs of administration for this receivership because both the extent of the work and the time to complete that work would be greater than the alternative of demolishing the structure.” 4

Other Sections in This Document (159)

Full Text