Turns out there IS a law against paying 3 times the fair market value for a property...
Excerpt from this week's council agenda; a legal response about Taxin' Tony Kranz/Teresa Barths attempt to give Lynn and Russell Marr their $100K back: but it also alludes to the council majority, Tony, Lisa and Teresa voting to paying 3 times what PV is worth: plus, the school district cannot seem to clear the 'cloud' on the school site because its tied to bonds and they are cash poor. Oh my... EUSD and the COE, 2 gangs that cannot legislate straight.
Just like in the City Attorney’s report regarding the Gift of Public Funds if the City lets Lynn Marr off of her lien, it would certainly appear that the City buying PV for almost 3 times its appraised value would also be classified as a Gift of Public Funds and thus against the law.
From the California Legislative Analyst’s Office:
As regards the latter issue of what to pay, state acquisition agencies as a matter of practice have generally interpreted the provision in the State Constitution prohibiting a gift of public funds as preventing them from paying more than a property’s FMV. This interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with longstanding legal opinions of the State Attorney General’s Office and Legal Counsel at DGS. At the very minimum, purchasing property with public funds at an amount greater than the property’s FMV raises a red flag as to whether this constitutional provision has been violated, even if it were argued that the constitution does not explicitly ban such transactions. It is important to note that this constitutional provision has been interpreted as imposing a cap on the purchase price, in contrast to dictating a minimum amount to be paid to a willing seller. Accordingly, the state can and does sometimes pay less than FMV for property, potentially triggering a tax benefit for the seller, as discussed later in this report."
Hot time in the old council chambers this Wednesday, fer sure...
Anonymous, what do you mean "taxin' Tony and Thresa? I don't remember taxes being raised in Encinitas. Hmm. And, do you really think a piece of property, 2.8 acres, overlooking the Pacific Ocean would be sold for $3.3 million? A house on our street just sold for $2 Million and didn't have an ocean view and was less than 1/4 acre. You seen sort of facts or logic.
Even more interesting on the Braun/Marr issue is some city correspondence from 2007. In those letters the city would forgive the $94,930.84 attorney fees if the Marrs would admit that the structure was illegal. Included was a schedule required of them for a period of 5 years. In the Wednesday staff report Sabine brings up the idea of a gift of public funds now. If the city was willing to waive the attorney fees in 2007, why isn't the city offering to waive the fees now in 2014?
Want to talk about a true illegal gift to the Carltas, Ecke ranch. Carltas owes the city taxpayers over $100,000 in sales tax. The debt was on the city books for a few years, then the debt quietly disappeared.
Amen to the Carltas comment. That was a gift to someone who didn't need a gift. Golf Courses are closing in this country, because they overbuilt in the 90's after the Tiger Woods phenomenon...
As a matter of record, in one year, the City Attorney was paid over $100,000 to litigate the Marr's property. Their home contained this "illegal" area before we were incorporated. I wonder how many other illegal units are out there that don't have liens on the property? They are being singled out because Russ was "rude". That is no reason to put a huge lien on someone's property, IMHO. I know I will be there Weds. night.
You be singled out if you allow yourself to be singled out. If you have an illegal unit, you sure as hell better keep your opinions to yourself and play nice if the city comes calling. That's just common sense.
Because if you think the system is fair, it's clearly not. Either way, the fascination and joy of name calling in this case is disgusting. Yes, it's the cities business, but it's become a total embarrassment. At this point I'd be in favor of tossing the lien and moving on.
6:49's comments is waayyy off the mark. The court clerk (not county clerk), who receives documents for filing at a filing window, determined the form of the judgment made it ineligible for renewal. The clerk was wrong and the judge ordered the clerk to accept the document (the renewed judgment) for filing.
12:18 PM And all of this event is in some detailed report? Why did the form of the judgment make it ineligible for renewal? Was this the original judgment? Does this mean that for the last ten years the form of the judgment had some technical illegalities? Inquiring minds want to know.
There is a 400 page document if anyone wants to take the time to read it. There have been so some injustices with this judgement it is almost impossible to imagine what has gone on. As a person who has followed this from the beginning I know that it is just wrong on so many levels. It will be interesting to see what the Council decides tomorrow night. Even with 2 time donations I could never get my points across to help the Marr's. Believe what you want, but until you have read the documents, you will never know the true injustice of what has happened. And, it can happen to anyone who had a home purchased before incorporation, that the the City now calls illegal dwelling . Does anyone know how much Dan Dalger had to pay for his illegal dwelling? Was their a lien on his home?
These folks are the essence of wasting tax dollars. If you let them off give me back all my money on fines and fees you imposed in me and all my neighbors.
Sabine didn't litigate this case. No one made $100K. The city was awarded legal costs which were below $100K, have not yet been recovered, and do not go to Sabine.
The claim that the unit was legal were presented in court, then appealed through all courts. At this point, as a matter of legal fact, it's an illegal unit.
The fact that the Marrs behaved atrociously is true, but not material to the procedures, facts, or rulings of the case.
I feel bad for the Marrs in the same way I would feel bad for someone who broke their neck cliff diving drunk. It's sad and painful, and the family should have the aid and comfort of their friends. However, they are not victims. They are the prime mover that created their terrible circumstance, and they need to stop blaming others and accept responsibility for the consequences of their bad decisions.
10:12 PM Not the facts. Sabine's name is on the lawsuit. The $94,930 dollars consisted of about $10,000 in court fees and $84,000+ in attorney fees. That's in the paperwork in the report. The Marrs were never given a hearing in front of the city council. Sabine and the council illegally used a city ordinance passed after the lawsuit was filed to demand attorney fees.
That claim would have been presented and carefully considered in superior court, appeals court, and state Supreme Court. That claim was considered and rejected.
The interesting thing about this topic is that the usual wild assertions of anonymous posters have already been tested in court. Say whatever you want, but the legal issues are no longer in question. Our court system is not a looping process. When rulings are made and upheld, you don't loop back to the beginning and reargue the facts.
The City Is Legally Entitled To Recover Legal Costs Plus Interest.
What other code violation cases were allowed a city council hearing in the last decade?
If you are claiming that the Marrs were singled out and treated unfairly, then there must have been others who were given a hearing.
In fact, the Marrs will get a hearing on Wed--something no other code violation cases have received. One might say that the Marrs have been singled out for special treatment (in their favor).
I agree with 10:12. Great logical post. The KLCC retards will never get it. They can't, they don't have the capacity to take accountability and ownership for their actions. There whole life is played out as a victim.
Facts are facts my friends. And the facts of this case are that Sabine was paid what 10:26 has said. If you don't believe it, get a Freedom of Information request about this case, including how much Sabine, Sabine and Morrison, and Rutan and Tucker were paid, and then let's talk.
The lien was put on the Marrr's property in 2004. This is why the renewal of the judgment is coming up in 2014. It would have expired without the renewal after ten years.. If it can expire, it seems to me that the gift-of-public-funds argument. is specious.
Sabine is very invested in the Marr's case. He railroaded it through with the help of Rutan and Tucker. The Marrs may have been difficult, but it was never proven in a court of law that the unit was illegal, rather than legal non-conforming. Sabine maneuvered for a default judgment against them for not remedying the complaint. The case was never proved. The Marrs didn't have the money to hire a lawyer. It all does look like a vendetta if the details of the case are looked at carefully,
I think at points here folks are confusing Sabine's lack of skills as a lawyer with their built in dislike of the man and what he represents at city hall.
Saying he has a vendetta is an assumption. He is paid by the city to represent them in cases like this. I would have to agree with 8:12 above that the Marrs are getting one in their favor to have a hearing Weds. And I think it's a good thing. Bury the hatchett and forgive the lien money if you can. In this case, the council can move on from the past in a positive way....
It is a city vendetta. The county clerk was going to deny the renewal of the judgment and lien now compounded with interest to over $190,000. Whether it was Sabine or Vina who jumped in and hired Rutan and Tucker to prevent the renewal denial wasn't explained in Sabine's report. Was the council told that the city clerk was going to deny the renewal? Did the council direct Sabine to hire Rutan and Tucker to vigorously prevent the denial of the renewal?
No, it doesn't help. It doesn't answer the question of a gift of public funds. If the judgment were allowed to expire, I don't; think that would be a gift of public funds. Almost ten years of interest have been added to the lien when the judgment was finalized by the court. The judgment and lien run almost simultaneously.
In 2007 the new City Manager Phil Cotton took another look at the case. To save face Sabine insisted that the Marrs admit their guilt. Like a number of convicted black "rapists," who refused to admit guilt because of their innocence and later proved by DNA evidence to have been railroaded, the attorneys involved never admit to any wrong doing. Jurisdictions have been forced to pay restitution. Is this what Sabine is afraid of?
9:00 AM is still wrong - The court clerk (not county clerk), who receives documents for filing at a filing window, determined the form of the judgment made it ineligible for renewal. The clerk was wrong and the judge ordered the clerk to accept the document (the renewed judgment) for filing. This was not a matter of vigorously preventing the denial of a renewal... it was essentially a matter of a court filing clerk making a mistake and being ordered by a boss (a judge) to fix it.
I would be in favor of reducing or finding a way to remove the lien if the Marrs came to council tomorrow and: (a.) did not attempt to re-litigate the facts of the case, (b.) accepted the judgement of the court, (c.) took responsibility, and didn't blame others, and (d.) said that they have converted the illegal living space back to a garage and are ready for an inspection to prove it.
If all of those conditions are satisfied (and only then), I think most reasonable folks in town would support forgiving the lien, even if it's not technically legal. Hopefully no one would challenge it (as no one challenged the Carltas debt forgiveness).
Sorry, should have been more clear. The lien is legal; forgiving the lien is considered an illegal gift from the city to the owners. The lien is listed as a public asset on the city's financial books. It's an asset that belongs to all of us, and the city is not legally allowed to give it away without getting something of similar value in return.
No thanks. Do your own homework. You are welcome to ask the city for an itemized list of receivables. Watch the council meeting tomorrow, I suspect you'll learn something about accounting, liens, and what constitutes an illegal gift.
11:46 AM Don't go away mad. You said the lien was in the receivables. Please provide the information. Maybe you'll learn something. That includes backroom dealing by Sabine with/without council knowledge.
The city has a double standard when it comes to legal non-conforming. Under similar circumstances Dan Dalager skated free with the conversion at his rental property at Third and F Streets. Like the Marrs he claimed the conversion was done under the county and therefore legal non-conforming. County records were destroyed after city incorporation, so he couldn't prove it either. The city bent over backward for Dalager, yet it looks like the "illegal" unit has been converted back. No ventetta for him.
I'm willing to bet that many of the same folks on here attacking the city for "overpaying" for PV and other acts of financial mismanagement are the same ones clamoring for the city for forgive this lien - in other words, walk away from a valuable financial asset.
Yes I feel bad for the Marrs but they made their bed and now must lay in it. There are consequences for bad behavior. If would be an act of gross financial irresponsibility for the city to surrender this asset.
The city should seriously consider selling the judgement/lien to a collection agency for 50 cents on the dollar. That would recover the original cost of legal expenses right away, and remove the city from any further drama.
Let someone else handle foreclosure. We have more important business to focus on. This distraction needs to end.
1:13- No this is not a distraction. If it were, it would not be going to Council. This could happen to anyone who has a home purchased before incorporation that has any space that is not up to the EMC. HOwever, it is discriminatory because the Marr's are being used as an example. If you can state with absolute certainty that their are absolutely no "illegal" dwellings in this City, I would buy it. I already know that in my neighborhood there are several. Do I intend to report them, NO! But unless one knows the complete story, I would not judge the Marr's as harshly as some have.
Right, but would they have been used as an example had they not acted the way they did? It's a fair question. Nothing happens in a vacuum. They have chosen a certain path, which at the very least you could say is a large nuisance and in the public arena.
Had they chosen to handle this behind closed doors, and in a more conciliatory manner, the outcome may have been different. A lot of this comes down to tactics, interaction, and the words you chose. There is a lesson here.
If you have an issue with a non-conforming unit in the city, their template is not the one to use....
Illegal dwellings are another way of describing unsafe dwellings. If you know of a unsafe dwelling you need to report it. People can die in unsafe dwellings - can you live with that 1:46?
Have you had a good or bad experience with a City Council or staff member? If so, would you like to share your story with the community?
Your story must be true, and you must report it accurately. In other words, no bullshit. Phony stories will be easy to detect and will probably be flamed. You can give your name or remain anonymous. Please give an approximate date or a time frame if your experience was long term.
Try not to make your story too long. Few people want to read long, boring stories.
The purpose of posting the stories is to give credit or condemnation where it's due.
If you have a good or bad story to share, post it to me, Ralph Clats. If the blog’s board of directors approves, I will post it on The Ralph Clats Blog.
My email address is ralphclats@gmail.com
The Ralph Clats Blog address is http://ralphclats.blogspot.com/
Kudos to todays Waves to Ride for nailing it. This can be and should be dealt a final and fatal blow by dismissing this action against the Marrs and by directing their dog sabine to cease and desist all actions against them. This community has always had a great number of such accessory units existing before cityhood. If there were ever to be any encouragement for owners to bring their units up to date and help us all fight the required numbers we are being forced to provide, this extreme example of selective malicious prosecution must reside where it belongs, in the trash heap. This is below every one of you council members to stoop to this level. You have the opportunity to do the right and just thing tomorrow. Put this behind you and show you are leading and not being led by your subordinates.
If I was on the council (and I hope they read this) . . .
Offer the Marrs one last chance to do the right thing.
Start the clock at tomorrow's meeting.
Over the next 60 days, the Marrs need to sign a legal agreement, drafted by the city attorney that says:
(a.) The Marrs accept the final rulings of the courts. (b.) The Marrs agree that the garage conversion is illegal living space. (c.) The Marrs attest that the garage space has been restored to code, and will make the garage available for inspection within 24 hours of signing this agreement. (d.) If the city code inspector approves the garage work, (e.) The Marrs understand and acknowledge that the city will retain the existing lien for a period of five years. (f.) during the five-year probationary period, the Marrs agree to maintain the building in conformance with code. (g.) The Marrs also agree to allow annual inspections to confirm compliance. (h.) If the Marrs remain in continuous and verified compliance after five years, then the city will agree to remove the lien and dissolve the debt.
It should also be noted that the city is taking a risk in extending this generous offer. The Marrs should be aware that a third-party could sue claiming the agreement constitutes an illegal gift. If the city loses such a challenge, the agreement could be dissolved, and the city could be put at risk for the legal expenses of the challenger. In other words, the city council is assuming legal, financial, and political risk to make the offer. Everyone, especially the Marrs, should appreciate the generosity of the offer.
If the Marrs refuse to sign, or if they fail to provide timely access for required inspections, or if the property is ever found to be out of compliance, or if an illegal gift challenge dissolves the agreement, then the city will move quickly to auction the judgement/lien to a third party for collection or foreclosure.
This plan provides one last shot for the Marrs to make a good choice. The only leverage the Marrs have left is the bad optics of a mean city foreclosing on a low income, disabled vet. The only leverage the city has left is to auction the debt to a third-party debt collector, thus removing the city from the PR spotlight.
This plan leverages both an incentive and a threat: either agree to the terms and comply, or the city will turn the debt over to people who don't care about PR.
3:02 PM Get that confession at any cost, huh? Something mighty nasty and devious going on behind the scene at city hall. How much did the council pay Rutan and Tucker for their involvement to get the judge to order the court clerk to accept the unacceptable judgment document? Did the council approved $20,000?
3:33, that's the nature of compromise. Both sides do something uncomfortable. The Marrs have to eat some crow, admit to obvious but painful truths, agree to inspections, give up their illegal unit. But under the plan the city also gets a dose of discomfort. The city gives up $190K, assumes risk (legal, financial, and political), and offers one more shot at redemption to an antagonistic foe that probably does not deserve it.
3:02 PM What you want is the council to use the 2007 letter from Randal Morrison. To wit: The Marrs will admit the structure is illegal even though the city could not prove it. There will be a probationary period of 5 years with various inspections. Then maybe, just maybe if you can trust the city, the lien may be lifted. How generous of the city.
Yup. It is generous. The Marrs can refuse it again if they want.
Frankly, I think the city is unlikely to offer such a generous offer. And if they did, the Marrs are unlikely to accept. But it's the right offer.
With or without one more offer, the likely outcome is selling the debt to a collection agency. The city is felony stupid if they fall into the PR trap of directly pursuing a foreclosure or forcing a bankruptcy.
Again: the Marr's unit is legal non-conforming, no different from 100s of others citywide. Why the pursuit of the Marrs to admit to something not true and not the other 100s? Why should the Marrs be forced to admit to something completely erroneous in order to make the city back off? Some would label that extortion: I do.
That argument was tried in court and failed. Appealed and failed again. Apoealed to the CA Supreme Court and failed again. You can claim the sky is green on a blog, but the final ruling is clear: it's an illegal unit.
The illegal unit was proved to the satisfaction of the code inspector, the planning and building department, the city council, two superior court judges, the appellate court, the CA Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court.
It's an illegal unit. Want me to show you in the court papers where it says so?
You can declare that the sun rose in the west this morning, but that don't make it so.
I want to see the city records paper trail that shows somehow the Marr property wasn't grandfathered in as legal non-conforming along with the Dalagers and Kranzs of this city. It doesn't exist. Court decisions that came about after Sabine created his case and the Marrs didn't have legal representation are not as solid to me as the missing paper trail.
Judge Stern's judgement gives the city the right to go onto the property to restore the garage to code without permission of the owner. Maybe it's time the city started considering that option. More leverage.
The award also clearly states that the city can put a lien on the real property if the award is not paid in 30 days (in 2004). Apparently, the city hasn't done that yet either.
Heavy handed? 10 years and you haven't secured the debt with a lien?
Time to attach the lien to secure the debt, enter the property to remove the illegal unit, and sell the judgement / lien to a third party for collection.
Enough is enough. If you read the court docs, the city was granted the power to end this dispute ten years ago, but failed to act and let it fester.
An unsecured judgement isn't worth much. Maybe ten cents on the dollar. Selling the current judgement to a debt collector as is wouldn't even recover the original legal costs.
The city should execute a lien as the judgement allows, then sell the secured debt to someone else. The value of the secured debt should about cover the original legal costs.
If the new debt owner forecloses, then whoever buys the home next will be required to remedy the code issues.
No need for the city to provoke a physical confrontation on the property by trying to compell compliance by force.
Here's the record of the "heavy handed" city and the poor poor victims:
-The city brought suit after giving lots of guidance on how to bring the code violation into compliance.
-the city could have asked for a penalty of some sort for the code violation, but didn't.
-the city prevailed on all claims, every argument made by the homeowners was defective, and proves wrong.
- the home owners exhausted all appeals, and lost at every turn.
- the city received a final judgement in 2004 that gave them the authority to remedy the code violations by force, if necessary.
- The city offered a settlement which the home owners rejected.
- ten years later, the code violation still has not been remedied. In ten years the city has taken no action to enforce the code. For ten years, the owners have continued to derive income and use if the illegal space in direct violation of the judgement.
- in 2004, the city received an award of legal fees.
- in 2004, the city was granted the power to file a lien on the property to secure the award.
-ten years later, the owners have not paid a dime of the amount owed.
In the ten years since the judgement, the city has taken no action to collect on the award.
- in the ten years since the award, the city has still not exercised their right to attach a lein to secure the debt owed.
-throughout the dispute, and in the decade that followed, the homeowners have been aggressive and abusive.
And the home owners claim the city is heavy handed? Are you kidding me?
After a decade, no action to enforce the judgement, no action to collect the debt.
I have lived in other cities where this would never happen. The lein would have been filed 31 days after the judgement, and eviction started a year after that.
What specific "heavy handed" actions has the city taken in the last ten years to enforse the judgement, and compel code compliance? What were the results?
In the ten years since receiving the award, what specific "heavy-handed" actions has the city taken to collect on the debt? How much have they collected?
The city's premise that the Marr's structure is "illegal" is unproven. It is, along with many others around town, legal non-conforming. Why should the Marrs have to admit to something they're not doing? There's something fishy about the city requiring that admission. Finally: would YOU trust the city to keep its word that it would back off you if you copped, on paper, to something you didn't do? Do you really, truly think the city would not turn around the next day/month/year and use your admission of guilt against you? That the city wouldn't throw back at you "You signed that confession...." I don't.
The city is evil. The city has a vendetta. The city will seek and get a court judgement against you even though you are in full compliance with the law.
And if you ignore the judgement, and refuse to pay the award, the heavy-handed city will ________________.
Let me give you another sentence to add to your post:
The city has sought retribution against ____ others. ____ of them rolled over out of fear and ignorance, and ____ of them fought the accusation and the city backed off.
You'd be surprised, 8:14, at the high number of respondents, should they feel the city is a safe adversary. It is not.
1.) define "safe adversary." I have no idea what that is.
2.) the city is not my "adversary." Perhaps that is the lens that distorts your vision.
3.) the Marrs have been legally defeated. They are in material breach of a court judgement for ten years, and paid nothing of the debt they legally owe.
The city has done nothing, let the Marrs thumb their noses at their legal responsibilities for a full decade.
As a citizen, this sends a vey bad message. If the city feels strongly enough to go to court and win, they must follow through to consequences.
The Marrs have been utterly and totally defeated in court. But in the real world, they have experienced no consequences. In the real world, the Marrs are winning. And yet they complain and pretend to be victims.
There is injustice in this case, but it's not the type you've imagined.
I simply don't see it as you do. The city is far from blameless, day in and day out. This case is no different in that I do not trust the city's actions and while I don't think the Marrs are blameless, the city is not to be trusted in its dealings with the public. Do you think we're paying for a communications czar because we have a good relationship with city hall? I don't. I think decades and especially recently, the city has tried to pull some real fast ones. Do you still trust them on Prop A? Desert Rose? Rossini Canyon?
Ugh. I don't trust them on the Marrs either.
If you don't have a healthy distrust of the city in its current state, you'd better hope you don't do anything to piss it off. You'd then see the "adversary" point.
A majority of people in this town fear the city enough to have felt the need to pass Prop A. The list of action taken by residents against city overstepping bounds goes before and after that: think the attempt to withhold the roads report, think residents from all five communities holding the city's feet to the fire on density bonus "interpretations" that lined developer pockets over our own stated Municipal Code. Many examples of the poor, beleaguered, innocent "punching bag" of a city are available for folks to reference...aww...poor, misunderstood city....
A definition of a "safe adversary?" One that doesn't misplace files, refuse to put things in writing (new Vina rule, in case you hadn't heard), and lie outright on any number of topics.
Turns out there IS a law against paying 3 times the fair market value for a property...
ReplyDeleteExcerpt from this week's council agenda; a legal response about Taxin' Tony Kranz/Teresa Barths attempt to give Lynn and Russell Marr their $100K back: but it also alludes to the council majority, Tony, Lisa and Teresa voting to paying 3 times what PV is worth: plus, the school district cannot seem to clear the 'cloud' on the school site because its tied to bonds and they are cash poor. Oh my... EUSD and the COE, 2 gangs that cannot legislate straight.
Just like in the City Attorney’s report regarding the Gift of Public Funds if the City lets Lynn Marr off of her lien, it would certainly appear that the City buying PV for almost 3 times its appraised value would also be classified as a Gift of Public Funds and thus against the law.
From the California Legislative Analyst’s Office:
As regards the latter issue of what to pay, state acquisition agencies as a matter of practice have generally interpreted the provision in the State Constitution prohibiting a gift of public funds as preventing them from paying more than a property’s FMV. This interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with longstanding legal opinions of the State Attorney General’s Office and Legal Counsel at DGS. At the very minimum, purchasing property with public funds at an amount greater than the property’s FMV raises a red flag as to whether this constitutional provision has been violated, even if it were argued that the constitution does not explicitly ban such transactions. It is important to note that this constitutional provision has been interpreted as imposing a cap on the purchase price, in contrast to dictating a minimum amount to be paid to a willing seller. Accordingly, the state can and does sometimes pay less than FMV for property, potentially triggering a tax benefit for the seller, as discussed later in this report."
Hot time in the old council chambers this Wednesday, fer sure...
Anonymous, what do you mean "taxin' Tony and Thresa? I don't remember taxes being raised in Encinitas. Hmm. And, do you really think a piece of property, 2.8 acres, overlooking the Pacific Ocean would be sold for $3.3 million? A house on our street just sold for $2 Million and didn't have an ocean view and was less than 1/4 acre. You seen sort of facts or logic.
DeleteEven more interesting on the Braun/Marr issue is some city correspondence from 2007. In those letters the city would forgive the $94,930.84 attorney fees if the Marrs would admit that the structure was illegal. Included was a schedule required of them for a period of 5 years. In the Wednesday staff report Sabine brings up the idea of a gift of public funds now. If the city was willing to waive the attorney fees in 2007, why isn't the city offering to waive the fees now in 2014?
ReplyDeleteIn 2007, when that offer was on the table, the lien had not been recorded. Apparently that triggers the illegal gifts problem.
DeleteWant to talk about a true illegal gift to the Carltas, Ecke ranch. Carltas owes the city taxpayers over $100,000 in sales tax. The debt was on the city books for a few years, then the debt quietly disappeared.
DeleteAmen to the Carltas comment. That was a gift to someone who didn't need a gift. Golf Courses are closing in this country, because they overbuilt in the 90's after the Tiger Woods phenomenon...
DeleteThe County Clerk was going to deny the renewal of the judgment. That's when the city attorney - Sabine jumped in to prevent the denial.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of record, in one year, the City Attorney was paid over $100,000 to litigate the Marr's property. Their home contained this "illegal" area before we were incorporated. I wonder how many other illegal units are out there that don't have liens on the property? They are being singled out because Russ was "rude". That is no reason to put a huge lien on someone's property, IMHO. I know I will be there Weds. night.
ReplyDeleteYou be singled out if you allow yourself to be singled out. If you have an illegal unit, you sure as hell better keep your opinions to yourself and play nice if the city comes calling. That's just common sense.
DeleteBecause if you think the system is fair, it's clearly not. Either way, the fascination and joy of name calling in this case is disgusting. Yes, it's the cities business, but it's become a total embarrassment.
At this point I'd be in favor of tossing the lien and moving on.
-MGJ
6:49's comments is waayyy off the mark. The court clerk (not county clerk), who receives documents for filing at a filing window, determined the form of the judgment made it ineligible for renewal. The clerk was wrong and the judge ordered the clerk to accept the document (the renewed judgment) for filing.
Delete12:18 PM
DeleteAnd all of this event is in some detailed report? Why did the form of the judgment make it ineligible for renewal? Was this the original judgment? Does this mean that for the last ten years the form of the judgment had some technical illegalities? Inquiring minds want to know.
There is a 400 page document if anyone wants to take the time to read it. There have been so some injustices with this judgement it is almost impossible to imagine what has gone on. As a person who has followed this from the beginning I know that it is just wrong on so many levels. It will be interesting to see what the Council decides tomorrow night. Even with 2 time donations I could never get my points across to help the Marr's. Believe what you want, but until you have read the documents, you will never know the true injustice of what has happened. And, it can happen to anyone who had a home purchased before incorporation, that the the City now calls illegal dwelling . Does anyone know how much Dan Dalger had to pay for his illegal dwelling? Was their a lien on his home?
DeleteSabine's reputation has been marred before and since. Hope the council gives these good folks a break, it's about time.
ReplyDeleteGood folks my $%ss. Don't waste my tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteThese folks are the essence of wasting tax dollars. If you let them off give me back all my money on fines and fees you imposed in me and all my neighbors.
You need to play by the same rules.
8:58,
ReplyDeleteSabine didn't litigate this case. No one made $100K. The city was awarded legal costs which were below $100K, have not yet been recovered, and do not go to Sabine.
The claim that the unit was legal were presented in court, then appealed through all courts. At this point, as a matter of legal fact, it's an illegal unit.
The fact that the Marrs behaved atrociously is true, but not material to the procedures, facts, or rulings of the case.
I feel bad for the Marrs in the same way I would feel bad for someone who broke their neck cliff diving drunk. It's sad and painful, and the family should have the aid and comfort of their friends. However, they are not victims. They are the prime mover that created their terrible circumstance, and they need to stop blaming others and accept responsibility for the consequences of their bad decisions.
I have an FOI that says otherwise regarding Sabine.
Delete10:12 PM
ReplyDeleteNot the facts. Sabine's name is on the lawsuit. The $94,930 dollars consisted of about $10,000 in court fees and $84,000+ in attorney fees. That's in the paperwork in the report.
The Marrs were never given a hearing in front of the city council.
Sabine and the council illegally used a city ordinance passed after the lawsuit was filed to demand attorney fees.
10:26,
DeleteSo the city illegally demanded legal fees?
That claim would have been presented and carefully considered in superior court, appeals court, and state Supreme Court. That claim was considered and rejected.
The interesting thing about this topic is that the usual wild assertions of anonymous posters have already been tested in court. Say whatever you want, but the legal issues are no longer in question. Our court system is not a looping process. When rulings are made and upheld, you don't loop back to the beginning and reargue the facts.
The
City
Is
Legally
Entitled
To
Recover
Legal
Costs
Plus
Interest.
10:26,
DeleteWhat other code violation cases were allowed a city council hearing in the last decade?
If you are claiming that the Marrs were singled out and treated unfairly, then there must have been others who were given a hearing.
In fact, the Marrs will get a hearing on Wed--something no other code violation cases have received. One might say that the Marrs have been singled out for special treatment (in their favor).
10:26 is right. 10:12 must have dived off a cliff drunk.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 10:12. Great logical post. The KLCC retards will never get it. They can't, they don't have the capacity to take accountability and ownership for their actions. There whole life is played out as a victim.
ReplyDeletePoor me. The universe is against me.
Go back to primer school before you show off more of your ignorance.
DeleteFacts are facts my friends. And the facts of this case are that Sabine was paid what 10:26 has said. If you don't believe it, get a Freedom of Information request about this case, including how much Sabine, Sabine and Morrison, and Rutan and Tucker were paid, and then let's talk.
DeleteThe lien was put on the Marrr's property in 2004. This is why the renewal of the judgment is coming up in 2014. It would have expired without the renewal after ten years.. If it can expire, it seems to me that the gift-of-public-funds argument. is specious.
ReplyDeleteSabine is very invested in the Marr's case. He railroaded it through with the help of Rutan and Tucker. The Marrs may have been difficult, but it was never proven in a court of law that the unit was illegal, rather than legal non-conforming. Sabine maneuvered for a default judgment against them for not remedying the complaint. The case was never proved. The Marrs didn't have the money to hire a lawyer. It all does look like a vendetta if the details of the case are looked at carefully,
Wrong. The judgement and lien are two different things.
DeleteJudgement was 2004. The lien based on the judgement attached in 2007. The the judgement expires (2014), it and the lien are renewed.
Hope this helps.
I think at points here folks are confusing Sabine's lack of skills as a lawyer with their built in dislike of the man and what he represents at city hall.
DeleteSaying he has a vendetta is an assumption. He is paid by the city to represent them in cases like this. I would have to agree with 8:12 above that the Marrs are getting one in their favor to have a hearing Weds. And I think it's a good thing. Bury the hatchett and forgive the lien money if you can. In this case, the council can move on from the past in a positive way....
It is a city vendetta. The county clerk was going to deny the renewal of the judgment and lien now compounded with interest to over $190,000. Whether it was Sabine or Vina who jumped in and hired Rutan and Tucker to prevent the renewal denial wasn't explained in Sabine's report. Was the council told that the city clerk was going to deny the renewal? Did the council direct Sabine to hire Rutan and Tucker to vigorously prevent the denial of the renewal?
Delete9:00 AM
Deletecorrection - It was the county clerk not the city clerk that would deny the renewal.
No, it doesn't help. It doesn't answer the question of a gift of public funds. If the judgment were allowed to expire, I don't; think that would be a gift of public funds. Almost ten years of interest have been added to the lien when the judgment was finalized by the court. The judgment and lien run almost simultaneously.
DeleteIn 2007 the new City Manager Phil Cotton took another look at the case. To save face Sabine insisted that the Marrs admit their guilt. Like a number of convicted black "rapists," who refused to admit guilt because of their innocence and later proved by DNA evidence to have been railroaded, the attorneys involved never admit to any wrong doing. Jurisdictions have been forced to pay restitution. Is this what Sabine is afraid of?
I still call it a vendetta.
9:00 AM is still wrong - The court clerk (not county clerk), who receives documents for filing at a filing window, determined the form of the judgment made it ineligible for renewal. The clerk was wrong and the judge ordered the clerk to accept the document (the renewed judgment) for filing. This was not a matter of vigorously preventing the denial of a renewal... it was essentially a matter of a court filing clerk making a mistake and being ordered by a boss (a judge) to fix it.
DeleteThe reason this won't go away is because the city was entirely in the wrong to do this to the Marr's. Absolute vendetta by the CA.
ReplyDeleteI would be in favor of reducing or finding a way to remove the lien if the Marrs came to council tomorrow and: (a.) did not attempt to re-litigate the facts of the case, (b.) accepted the judgement of the court, (c.) took responsibility, and didn't blame others, and (d.) said that they have converted the illegal living space back to a garage and are ready for an inspection to prove it.
ReplyDeleteIf all of those conditions are satisfied (and only then), I think most reasonable folks in town would support forgiving the lien, even if it's not technically legal. Hopefully no one would challenge it (as no one challenged the Carltas debt forgiveness).
9:07 AM
ReplyDeleteYou write that the lien isn't technically legal. What does that mean?
Sorry, should have been more clear. The lien is legal; forgiving the lien is considered an illegal gift from the city to the owners. The lien is listed as a public asset on the city's financial books. It's an asset that belongs to all of us, and the city is not legally allowed to give it away without getting something of similar value in return.
Delete9:35 AM
DeleteWhat page and which financial book can we find the lien listed?
10:07 AM
DeleteYou are joking. There is no breakdown of receivables. Get the breakdown of receivables then come back and make your specious claims.
10:15,
DeleteAre you seriously disputing that a lien is a receivable?
Please tell us how accounting works for municipal liens, then.
11:00 AM
DeleteYou can't find the lien, can you. Get the breakdown of the receivables then come back and make your specious claims.
11:23,
DeleteNo thanks. Do your own homework. You are welcome to ask the city for an itemized list of receivables. Watch the council meeting tomorrow, I suspect you'll learn something about accounting, liens, and what constitutes an illegal gift.
take care.
11:46 AM
DeleteDon't go away mad. You said the lien was in the receivables. Please provide the information. Maybe you'll learn something. That includes backroom dealing by Sabine with/without council knowledge.
The city has a double standard when it comes to legal non-conforming. Under similar circumstances Dan Dalager skated free with the conversion at his rental property at Third and F Streets. Like the Marrs he claimed the conversion was done under the county and therefore legal non-conforming. County records were destroyed after city incorporation, so he couldn't prove it either. The city bent over backward for Dalager, yet it looks like the "illegal" unit has been converted back. No ventetta for him.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to bet that many of the same folks on here attacking the city for "overpaying" for PV and other acts of financial mismanagement are the same ones clamoring for the city for forgive this lien - in other words, walk away from a valuable financial asset.
ReplyDeleteYes I feel bad for the Marrs but they made their bed and now must lay in it. There are consequences for bad behavior. If would be an act of gross financial irresponsibility for the city to surrender this asset.
The city should seriously consider selling the judgement/lien to a collection agency for 50 cents on the dollar. That would recover the original cost of legal expenses right away, and remove the city from any further drama.
ReplyDeleteLet someone else handle foreclosure. We have more important business to focus on. This distraction needs to end.
1:13- No this is not a distraction. If it were, it would not be going to Council. This could happen to anyone who has a home purchased before incorporation that has any space that is not up to the EMC. HOwever, it is discriminatory because the Marr's are being used as an example. If you can state with absolute certainty that their are absolutely no "illegal" dwellings in this City, I would buy it. I already know that in my neighborhood there are several. Do I intend to report them, NO! But unless one knows the complete story, I would not judge the Marr's as harshly as some have.
ReplyDeleteRight, but would they have been used as an example had they not acted the way they did? It's a fair question. Nothing happens in a vacuum. They have chosen a certain path, which at the very least you could say is a large nuisance and in the public arena.
DeleteHad they chosen to handle this behind closed doors, and in a more conciliatory manner, the outcome may have been different. A lot of this comes down to tactics, interaction, and the words you chose. There is a lesson here.
If you have an issue with a non-conforming unit in the city, their template is not the one to use....
-MGJ
Illegal dwellings are another way of describing unsafe dwellings. If you know of a unsafe dwelling you need to report it. People can die in unsafe dwellings - can you live with that 1:46?
ReplyDeleteHave you had a good or bad experience with a City Council or staff member? If so, would you like to share your story with the community?
ReplyDeleteYour story must be true, and you must report it accurately. In other words, no bullshit. Phony stories will be easy to detect and will probably be flamed. You can give your name or remain anonymous. Please give an approximate date or a time frame if your experience was long term.
Try not to make your story too long. Few people want to read long, boring stories.
The purpose of posting the stories is to give credit or condemnation where it's due.
If you have a good or bad story to share, post it to me, Ralph Clats. If the blog’s board of directors approves, I will post it on The Ralph Clats Blog.
My email address is ralphclats@gmail.com
The Ralph Clats Blog address is http://ralphclats.blogspot.com/
Kudos to todays Waves to Ride for nailing it. This can be and should be dealt a final and fatal blow by dismissing this action against the Marrs and by directing their dog sabine to cease and desist all actions against them.
ReplyDeleteThis community has always had a great number of such accessory units existing before cityhood. If there were ever to be any encouragement for owners to bring their units up to date and help us all fight the required numbers we are being forced to provide, this extreme example of selective malicious prosecution must reside where it belongs, in the trash heap.
This is below every one of you council members to stoop to this level. You have the opportunity to do the right and just thing tomorrow. Put this behind you and show you are leading and not being led by your subordinates.
If I was on the council (and I hope they read this) . . .
ReplyDeleteOffer the Marrs one last chance to do the right thing.
Start the clock at tomorrow's meeting.
Over the next 60 days, the Marrs need to sign a legal agreement, drafted by the city attorney that says:
(a.) The Marrs accept the final rulings of the courts.
(b.) The Marrs agree that the garage conversion is illegal living space.
(c.) The Marrs attest that the garage space has been restored to code, and will make the garage available for inspection within 24 hours of signing this agreement.
(d.) If the city code inspector approves the garage work,
(e.) The Marrs understand and acknowledge that the city will retain the existing lien for a period of five years.
(f.) during the five-year probationary period, the Marrs agree to maintain the building in conformance with code.
(g.) The Marrs also agree to allow annual inspections to confirm compliance.
(h.) If the Marrs remain in continuous and verified compliance after five years, then the city will agree to remove the lien and dissolve the debt.
It should also be noted that the city is taking a risk in extending this generous offer. The Marrs should be aware that a third-party could sue claiming the agreement constitutes an illegal gift. If the city loses such a challenge, the agreement could be dissolved, and the city could be put at risk for the legal expenses of the challenger. In other words, the city council is assuming legal, financial, and political risk to make the offer. Everyone, especially the Marrs, should appreciate the generosity of the offer.
If the Marrs refuse to sign, or if they fail to provide timely access for required inspections, or if the property is ever found to be out of compliance, or if an illegal gift challenge dissolves the agreement, then the city will move quickly to auction the judgement/lien to a third party for collection or foreclosure.
This plan provides one last shot for the Marrs to make a good choice. The only leverage the Marrs have left is the bad optics of a mean city foreclosing on a low income, disabled vet. The only leverage the city has left is to auction the debt to a third-party debt collector, thus removing the city from the PR spotlight.
This plan leverages both an incentive and a threat: either agree to the terms and comply, or the city will turn the debt over to people who don't care about PR.
If it were me, I'd take that deal.
3:02 PM
ReplyDeleteGet that confession at any cost, huh? Something mighty nasty and devious going on behind the scene at city hall. How much did the council pay Rutan and Tucker for their involvement to get the judge to order the court clerk to accept the unacceptable judgment document?
Did the council approved $20,000?
3:33,
DeleteThey don't have to sign. They can make another bad choice if they want.
Free will.
3:33, that's the nature of compromise. Both sides do something uncomfortable. The Marrs have to eat some crow, admit to obvious but painful truths, agree to inspections, give up their illegal unit. But under the plan the city also gets a dose of discomfort. The city gives up $190K, assumes risk (legal, financial, and political), and offers one more shot at redemption to an antagonistic foe that probably does not deserve it.
DeleteFire Sabine and Vina. Both bad choices.
ReplyDelete3:02 PM
ReplyDeleteWhat you want is the council to use the 2007 letter from Randal Morrison. To wit: The Marrs will admit the structure is illegal even though the city could not prove it. There will be a probationary period of 5 years with various inspections. Then maybe, just maybe if you can trust the city, the lien may be lifted. How generous of the city.
Yup. It is generous. The Marrs can refuse it again if they want.
DeleteFrankly, I think the city is unlikely to offer such a generous offer. And if they did, the Marrs are unlikely to accept. But it's the right offer.
With or without one more offer, the likely outcome is selling the debt to a collection agency. The city is felony stupid if they fall into the PR trap of directly pursuing a foreclosure or forcing a bankruptcy.
Again: the Marr's unit is legal non-conforming, no different from 100s of others citywide. Why the pursuit of the Marrs to admit to something not true and not the other 100s? Why should the Marrs be forced to admit to something completely erroneous in order to make the city back off? Some would label that extortion: I do.
DeleteThat argument was tried in court and failed. Appealed and failed again. Apoealed to the CA Supreme Court and failed again. You can claim the sky is green on a blog, but the final ruling is clear: it's an illegal unit.
DeleteNo proof provided by Sabine/City and you think that's cool, 6:46?
DeleteThe illegal unit was proved to the satisfaction of the code inspector, the planning and building department, the city council, two superior court judges, the appellate court, the CA Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court.
DeleteIt's an illegal unit. Want me to show you in the court papers where it says so?
You can declare that the sun rose in the west this morning, but that don't make it so.
I want to see the city records paper trail that shows somehow the Marr property wasn't grandfathered in as legal non-conforming along with the Dalagers and Kranzs of this city. It doesn't exist. Court decisions that came about after Sabine created his case and the Marrs didn't have legal representation are not as solid to me as the missing paper trail.
DeleteThe lien wasn't against the Marrs property. It was a general execution docket.
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
ReplyDeleteJudge Stern's judgement gives the city the right to go onto the property to restore the garage to code without permission of the owner. Maybe it's time the city started considering that option. More leverage.
The award also clearly states that the city can put a lien on the real property if the award is not paid in 30 days (in 2004). Apparently, the city hasn't done that yet either.
Heavy handed? 10 years and you haven't secured the debt with a lien?
Time to attach the lien to secure the debt, enter the property to remove the illegal unit, and sell the judgement / lien to a third party for collection.
Enough is enough. If you read the court docs, the city was granted the power to end this dispute ten years ago, but failed to act and let it fester.
Outrageous.
An unsecured judgement isn't worth much. Maybe ten cents on the dollar. Selling the current judgement to a debt collector as is wouldn't even recover the original legal costs.
ReplyDeleteThe city should execute a lien as the judgement allows, then sell the secured debt to someone else. The value of the secured debt should about cover the original legal costs.
If the new debt owner forecloses, then whoever buys the home next will be required to remedy the code issues.
No need for the city to provoke a physical confrontation on the property by trying to compell compliance by force.
I have been told that both Dalger and Kranz have illegal units. Has anyone inspected these? And if so, what was the outcome?
ReplyDeleteShould be same as Marrs, but they are not worth as much to the city as Dalager was and Kranz is.
DeleteHere's the record of the "heavy handed" city and the poor poor victims:
ReplyDelete-The city brought suit after giving lots of guidance on how to bring the code violation into compliance.
-the city could have asked for a penalty of some sort for the code violation, but didn't.
-the city prevailed on all claims, every argument made by the homeowners was defective, and proves wrong.
- the home owners exhausted all appeals, and lost at every turn.
- the city received a final judgement in 2004 that gave them the authority to remedy the code violations by force, if necessary.
- The city offered a settlement which the home owners rejected.
- ten years later, the code violation still has not been remedied. In ten years the city has taken no action to enforce the code. For ten years, the owners have continued to derive income and use if the illegal space in direct violation of the judgement.
- in 2004, the city received an award of legal fees.
- in 2004, the city was granted the power to file a lien on the property to secure the award.
-ten years later, the owners have not paid a dime of the amount owed.
In the ten years since the judgement, the city has taken no action to collect on the award.
- in the ten years since the award, the city has still not exercised their right to attach a lein to secure the debt owed.
-throughout the dispute, and in the decade that followed, the homeowners have been aggressive and abusive.
And the home owners claim the city is heavy handed? Are you kidding me?
After a decade, no action to enforce the judgement, no action to collect the debt.
I have lived in other cities where this would never happen. The lein would have been filed 31 days after the judgement, and eviction started a year after that.
Give me a break.
Ok 8:32 you are not getting what happened at all so go back to your story land.
Delete8:36, enlighten me.
DeleteWhat specific "heavy handed" actions has the city taken in the last ten years to enforse the judgement, and compel code compliance? What were the results?
In the ten years since receiving the award, what specific "heavy-handed" actions has the city taken to collect on the debt? How much have they collected?
The city's premise that the Marr's structure is "illegal" is unproven. It is, along with many others around town, legal non-conforming. Why should the Marrs have to admit to something they're not doing? There's something fishy about the city requiring that admission. Finally: would YOU trust the city to keep its word that it would back off you if you copped, on paper, to something you didn't do? Do you really, truly think the city would not turn around the next day/month/year and use your admission of guilt against you? That the city wouldn't throw back at you "You signed that confession...." I don't.
Delete7:19, that's your call.
DeleteIf a collection agency foreclosure sounds like a better option, have at it.
Sounds like you got some inside info there?
DeleteToo bad right and wrong and anticipating unforeseen consequences mean you'd plead guilty to something you didn't do.
5:03 PM was wrong. A lien was filed against the property. The judgment was also filed in five other counties.
ReplyDeleteCompete the following post for me:
ReplyDeleteThe city is evil. The city has a vendetta. The city will seek and get a court judgement against you even though you are in full compliance with the law.
And if you ignore the judgement, and refuse to pay the award, the heavy-handed city will ________________.
Let me give you another sentence to add to your post:
DeleteThe city has sought retribution against ____ others. ____ of them rolled over out of fear and ignorance, and ____ of them fought the accusation and the city backed off.
You'd be surprised, 8:14, at the high number of respondents, should they feel the city is a safe adversary. It is not.
1.) define "safe adversary." I have no idea what that is.
Delete2.) the city is not my "adversary." Perhaps that is the lens that distorts your vision.
3.) the Marrs have been legally defeated. They are in material breach of a court judgement for ten years, and paid nothing of the debt they legally owe.
The city has done nothing, let the Marrs thumb their noses at their legal responsibilities for a full decade.
As a citizen, this sends a vey bad message. If the city feels strongly enough to go to court and win, they must follow through to consequences.
The Marrs have been utterly and totally defeated in court. But in the real world, they have experienced no consequences. In the real world, the Marrs are winning. And yet they complain and pretend to be victims.
There is injustice in this case, but it's not the type you've imagined.
I simply don't see it as you do. The city is far from blameless, day in and day out. This case is no different in that I do not trust the city's actions and while I don't think the Marrs are blameless, the city is not to be trusted in its dealings with the public. Do you think we're paying for a communications czar because we have a good relationship with city hall? I don't. I think decades and especially recently, the city has tried to pull some real fast ones. Do you still trust them on Prop A? Desert Rose? Rossini Canyon?
DeleteUgh. I don't trust them on the Marrs either.
If you don't have a healthy distrust of the city in its current state, you'd better hope you don't do anything to piss it off. You'd then see the "adversary" point.
I just figured out what a "safe adversary" is.
DeleteA punching bag.
That's what you think the city should be. An entity where you can vent and dump abuse without any active defense or response.
I don't expect our local elected representatives or staff to be a "safe adversary" for you; and I bet the majority of people in town don't either.
A majority of people in this town fear the city enough to have felt the need to pass Prop A. The list of action taken by residents against city overstepping bounds goes before and after that: think the attempt to withhold the roads report, think residents from all five communities holding the city's feet to the fire on density bonus "interpretations" that lined developer pockets over our own stated Municipal Code. Many examples of the poor, beleaguered, innocent "punching bag" of a city are available for folks to reference...aww...poor, misunderstood city....
DeleteA definition of a "safe adversary?" One that doesn't misplace files, refuse to put things in writing (new Vina rule, in case you hadn't heard), and lie outright on any number of topics.
ReplyDelete