A legal battle over a dilapidated property in Claremont has culminated in a contentious court ruling, with significant financial implications for the parties involved. The City of Claremont filed a complaint against Sandblossom, LLC on January 2019 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that the defendant's property had become a public nuisance.
The case began when the City of Claremont sought judicial intervention to address the deteriorating condition of a residential property owned by Sandblossom, LLC. The city petitioned for the appointment of California Receivership Group (CRG) as a receiver to oversee the rehabilitation of the property. On February 10, 2020, Judge Peter Hernandez issued an order appointing CRG as the receiver, granting it extensive powers to manage and rehabilitate the property, including borrowing funds secured by a super-priority lien on the property.
However, complications arose when Sandblossom appealed this appointment order on February 13, 2020. Despite this appeal and subsequent stay orders, remediation work continued on the property. By November 10, 2021, the City gave final approval for the project's completion. In September 2022, CRG filed a motion for discharge seeking reimbursement for fees and costs incurred during its receivership duties.
The court's March 15, 2023 order partially granted CRG’s motion but reduced its requested reimbursements significantly. Specifically, while acknowledging $36,731.06 paid in delinquent property taxes by CRG's lender and allowing $21,716.07 for pre-stay expenses, it denied other claims citing lack of specificity and relevance to necessary work done during non-stay periods.
This reduction led to further disputes between Sandblossom and CRG regarding authorized increases to the receiver’s certificate amount. Sandblossom argued that only $58,447.13 was authorized while CRG claimed it should be $83,447.13 based on additional interests and costs accrued.
Sandblossom subsequently filed a contempt motion against CRG for allegedly violating court orders by inflating amounts due under its receivership certificate beyond what was authorized. This motion was denied but prompted an October 12 clarification from Judge Hernandez stating that total authorized reimbursements were indeed capped at $58,447.13.
CRG appealed this clarification order on December 7, arguing that it deprived their lender of entitled interest payments and improperly amended prior orders without jurisdiction or due process for involved parties like their lender who had not been given notice or opportunity to be heard.
Ultimately affirming Judge Hernandez’s rulings across various motions related to this case were Judges Rothschild (Presiding), Weingart (Associate), and Kelley (Visiting from San Luis Obispo County Superior Court). Representing parties included Mark S. Adams and Thomas A Yatteau from California Receivership Group alongside Richard A McDonald from Stoner Carlson law firm defending Sandblossom LLC under Case ID B334218.