Section 1805

Citation: Section 1805
Parent Document: Ocean Park Associates v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 421 (2004)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2004-01-07
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2295617/ocean-park-associates-v-santa-m... ↗

Full Text

1,053 chars

Appellant’s final contention is that the Board’s decision is not supported by the facts, specifically the finding that the construction work was carried out in an unreasonable manner or took an unreasonably long time to complete. As we have discussed, the hearing officer admitted that Harreschou “was planning to review the testimony of the owner’s contractors, including what was in the building before, the scope of work, the size of crews, the budget, and so forth, and then provide an opinion as to how long the entire job should reasonably have taken” but was unable to do so because “the owners failed to present any testimony on the above subjects, nor did they submit any blueprints, plans, bids, contracts, permits or other documents which would have helped Mr. Harreschou reconstruct what work was done, how and by whom.” Appellant contends that the failure of the Board’s expert witness to review plans and work and come to specific conclusions concerning the reasonable time for completion of each project compels reversal. We do not agree.

Other Sections in This Document (140)

Full Text