In City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, — Cal. Rptr.3d —, 2008 WL 2079196, Cal., May 19, 2008), the California Supreme Court considered a challenge by a property owner that a city did not adhere to notification procedures specified in the Health and Safety Code when placing the property in receivership and seeking to demolish it because of the owner’s failure to correct conditions on the property that violated various laws.
The Court found that the evidence clearly demonstrated that the owner had been repeatedly notified that his property’s condition violated laws, that he had been repeatedly directed to correct the violations and had not done so, and he had been notified that receivership and demolition were possible consequences. As such, the Court ruled the City had clearly complied with the spirit of the notification requirements and the owner’s due process rights had not been violated.
Facts
Guillermo Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) owned property in Santa Monica (“City”) that had long been the subject of city warnings and notifications that it was in an unsafe and unsanitary condition that endangered the health and safety of its occupants and neighbors and that its condition violated numerous state and city laws and regulations. Repeatedly, between 1989 and 2004, the city ordered him to correct the violations and Gonzalez continually failed to do so.
In 2004, the City filed a petition for receivership, citing the uncorrected code violations, and personally served Gonzalez with a notice of the motion which explained that receivership and the complete demolition of the structures on the property were possible outcomes. Gonzalez attended a hearing on the motion, at which time the court ruled his property was a public nuisance, that he had shown no interest in correcting its violations, and that he had been properly served and given notice prior to the appointment of a receiver. In 2005, the court granted the receiver’s motion to allow demolition of the structures.
Gonzalez appealed to the Court of Appeal charging that his rights to due process were violated because the City had failed to issue a notice to repair or abate in conformance with Health and Safety Code sections 17980.6 and 17980.7. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order and Gonzalez appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Decision
Analyzing the language of sections 17980.6 and 17980.7, the Court opined that the notice required “is simply notice that the receivership petition be served on all persons with a recorded interest in the property at least three days before the petition is filed.” The City complied with that requirement. Further, the Court ruled the City had informed Gonzalez in unambiguous terms that his property violated numerous standards and code sections and directed him to make the necessary repairs, which he failed to do.
Gonzalez claimed the City had not complied with Section 17980.6’s requirement that notice be posted in a conspicuous place on the property and mailed to affected residential units. In this case, however, the Court said the City substantially complied with the requirement—fully satisfying its essential purpose and objective—by personally serving Gonzalez with the notice. “Where, as here, an enforcement agency personally serves a property owner with a notice to repair, the agency’s failure to conspicuously post the same notice provides the owner with no basis for relief,” the Court ruled. Further, the requirement that each affected unit be notified by mail exists to protect tenants who may need to find a new home, not to protect negligent property owners like Gonzalez.
No violation of due process appears in this case because Gonzalez was provided with notice, the opportunity to be heard, and the opportunity to correct or repair the defects before demolition, the Court added. Given Gonzalez’ “long and undisputed history” of demonstrating that he was unwilling or unable to maintain his property in a suitable state, the trial court acted “well within its discretion, and clearly in the interest of fairness, justice and the rights of the respective parties and the public, in authorizing the receivership and the receiver’s pursuit of the demolition alternative,” the Court ruled.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.