City of Costa Mesa v. Enclave Assets CA4/3

Filed 6/1/23 City of Costa Mesa v. Enclave Assets CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CITY OF COSTA MESA,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061200

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-01210115)

ENCLAVE ASSETS, LLC et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Layne H. Melzer, Judge. Affirmed. Frank A. Weiser, for Defendants and Appellants. Jones & Mayer, Amanda A. Pope and Robert L. Wakefield, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

“Sections 17980.6 and 17980.7 of the Health and Safety Code compose a statutory scheme providing certain remedies to address substandard residential housing that is unsafe to occupy. Pursuant to section 17980.6, an enforcement agency may issue a notice to an owner to repair or abate property conditions that violate state or local building standards and substantially endanger the health and safety of residents or the public. Section 17980.7 provides that, if the owner fails to comply with the notice despite having been afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so, the enforcement agency may seek judicial appointment of a receiver to assume control over the property and remediate the violations or take other appropriate action.” (City of Santa Monica v. 1 Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 912, fn. omitted.) Here, after appellants Enclave Assets, LLC and David Brent Adams failed to timely comply with a Notice to Abate, the City of Costa Mesa (the City) filed a petition seeking an appointment of a receiver pursuant to section 17980.7. The trial court granted the petition and appointed a receiver. Appellants challenge the order on numerous grounds, but as discussed below, we conclude they failed to affirmatively establish error. Accordingly, we affirm. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Receivership Petition On July 12, 2021, the City filed a petition seeking an “Order to Abate Substandard Building and Appointment of Receiver” (the Receivership Petition). The Receivership Petition alleged that following a small fire at the subject property (the property) in April 2019, the City discovered the property had been illegally subdivided and used as an unpermitted sober living facility. A subsequent City inspection in May 2019 revealed further state law and City Municipal Code violations including, among others, unpermitted kitchen and laundry room additions and two structurally unsound 1 All further statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code, unless otherwise stated.