section 17980

Citation: section 17980
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

1,561 chars

When we apply the highly deferential standard of review, and take into account all the surrounding facts and circumstances presented, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in authorizing the receiver to contract for demolition. The evidence presented to the court amply demonstrated that the known code violations were extensive and supported its determination that the property was uninhabitable. The circumstances brought to the court’s attention also supported its conclusion that rehabilitation was not economically feasible. Although the information provided by the receiver indicated there was enough equity in the property to secure financing for the rehabilitation bid of $145,000, the court could reasonably agree with the receiver that the costs of both rehabilitation and receivership administration would likely increase significantly as additional problems surfaced during the course of the corrective work. Moreover, regardless of the equity available for securing financing, Gonzalez made no showing or contention that he could qualify for a loan to finance the necessary repairs or that he had the ability to repay such a loan were he to retain ownership and regain possession of the property. To the contrary, he represented he was unemployed and had no financial resources apart from the property (and its illegal rental units). Finally, there is nothing to suggest the court approved a fraudulent, unfair, or oppressive course of action. (See Lesser & Son, supra, 35 Cal.2d at p. 503; People v. Riverside University, supra,

Other Sections in This Document (159)

Full Text