Friedman v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 1975 No. Civ. 46053Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The City is liable for damages for the wrongful demolition of a building because it failed to provide the current property owner with due process, specifically notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to the demolition.

Issues

Whether the City's reliance on outdated ownership records for demolition notice satisfies due process requirements.
Whether the City is liable for damages for the destruction of private property without adequate notice to the current owner.
Whether the trial court erred in awarding pre-judgment interest on damages for the value of destroyed property.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of an absolute emergency, essential elements of due process of law include notice and opportunity to be heard.”

“We think Friedman was entitled to notice of the prospective demolition.”

“An unlawful exercise of the police power in the destruction of private property gives rise to a cause of action for damages.”

Opinion

FLEMING, Acting P. J.

Defendant City of Los Angeles appeals the judgment in favor of plaintiff Leonard Friedman in an action for damages for the wrongful demolition of a building.

Facts

In October 1967 fire damaged a four-unit apartment building owned by Willie and Corinne Powell at 227-229 East Adams Blvd., Los Angeles. In November 1967 the city department of building and safety ordered

[320]

the building repaired or demolished. A December 1967 title search of county records on behalf of the city showed the Powells as owners of the property. In July 1968 the city gave notice to the Powells they had until August 26 to comply with the city’s order; after that date they would forfeit the right to comply, and the city would solicit bids to demolish the building.

The Powells applied to the board of building and safety commissioners for an indefinite extension of time to comply, but on November 18 the board denied the Powells’ application and requested the department of building and safety “to proceed with demolition procedures against the building.”

On November 22, in a recorded transaction the Powells sold the property to Homeside Construction Company. On November 29 Homeside, as owner, was issued a permit to repair the building by the building bureau of the department of building and safety. The permit required Homeside to begin repairs within six months and complete them within one year. Contrary to the usual procedure within the department of building and safety, the building bureau did not forward a copy of the building permit to the conservation bureau, the office that had authority over the demolition of buildings.

On December 20 in a recorded transaction Homeside sold the property to Friedman. Friedman testified he knew nothing about the impending demolition. He planned to rehabilitate the property in accordance with the building permit and sell it at a profit. He valued the land at $4,500 and the unrepaired building at $12,000.

Without notice to Homeside or Friedman, on 23 January 1969 the city superintendent of buildings adopted specifications for the demolition of the building. Bids were solicited on February 20, a contract was signed on March 31, and on April 29 the building was demolished. County tax

Friedman v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief