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

1,176 chars

The Court of Appeal ordered all proceedings in the trial court stayed and agreed to consider Gonzalez’s writ petition concurrently with his appeals. The court unanimously affirmed the receiver’s appointment, finding the City sufficiently complied with sections 17980.6 and 17980.7 to protect Gonzalez’s due process rights. The justices, however, disagreed on the issue of demolition. The majority determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the less expensive and more profitable option of demolishing and selling the property, rather than the more expensive and less profitable option of rehabilitation. Conversely, the dissenting justice concluded the court’s approval of demolition over Gonzalez’s objection was arbitrary and unreasonable because there was ample equity in the property to pay for correction of all code violations. In his view, accepting the economic consequence of rehabilitation—which would leave $150,000 less in equity than demolition and sale—was a decision properly left to Gonzalez, so long as the property was made safe and sanitary. The Court of Appeal affirmed both orders, denied the writ petition, and vacated the stay.

Other Sections in This Document (159)

Full Text