2017-00206453-CU-PO

People of the State of Ca. vs. Jack A. McGuire

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Instruction and for Order on Receiver’s Certificate

Filed By: Adams, Mark S.

This tentative ruling concerns the status of Margaret McGuire’s (the Property owner) efforts to abate the nuisance conditions at 2530 Queenwood Drive, Rancho Cordova, California (the “Property”).

The Court is well familiar with the instant litigation. At the June 25, 2018 hearing on the Court’s Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), the Court stayed the receivership through October 31, 2018, to give Mrs. McGuire the opportunity to remedy the Property’s nuisance violations herself.

For the reasons that follow, the Court will continue the stay until January 11, 2019. However, if Mrs. McGuire does not demonstrate concrete steps to remedy the Property’s nuisance violations as detailed infra, the Court hereby gives notice that it shall entertain a motion to lift the stay and authorize the Receiver to market and sell the Property to a third party with the ability and funds to remedy the nuisance conditions.

Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Receiver’s Appointment

On September 12, 2017, the Court scheduled on shortened time an October 2, 2017 hearing on Plaintiff City of Rancho Cordova’s (the “City”) Application for Appointment of a Receiver under Health and Safety Code sections 17980, et seq. (“Receiver Motion”). Pending the hearing, and at the City’s behest, the Court appointed the California Receivership Group, PBC (the “Receiver”) as a provisional receiver to inspect and “evaluate the current condition [of] the property.” (ROA # 20.)

An inspection occurred shortly after the September 12, 2017 hearing, with City code enforcement officers present. The Property was described in the First Report of Provisional Receiver (“First Report”) as suffering from sporadic outdoor maintenance with overgrown vegetation and a rodent infestation. An inoperable vehicle was located in the front yard, and leaves and dead vegetation on the roof were deemed a fire hazard. (First Report at p. 2, ROA # 41.) An inspection of the interior revealed unfinished, unpermitted work in the living room and kitchen area with exposed wiring and water damage to the ceiling. (Id. at p. 3.)

Immediately following the inspection, the Receiver “had the most pressing landscaping issues addressed.” (First Report at p. 3.) A two-person crew removed three loads of green waste from the roof and sides of the Property. (Id. at p. 4.) A couple of days later, a local hauling company removed the remainder of trash and green waste. New locks were also installed. (Ibid.)

The Receiver stated in the First Report that he believed it would “not be prohibitively expensive to remedy the current code violations[,]” and it was “definitely clear that the structure is salvageable.” (First Report at p. 3.) However, the Receiver recommended its appointment be made permanent, stating “short of either a family member or responsible attorney participating, I do not expect this Property will stop being a nuisance without the full appointment of a receiver.” (Id. at pp. 4-5.)

Before the October 2, 2017 hearing on the Receiver Motion, the defaults of Defendants Jack McGuire and Margaret McGuire were taken, and Defendant Margaret McGuire filed an untimely opposition. Mrs. McGuire, currently in her 90s, represented her husband, Jack McGuire, is deceased and that she lives with her son in Berkeley, California.

The Court continued the hearing on the Receiver Motion to October 20, 2017, to provide Mrs. McGuire the opportunity to have her default vacated and her opposition considered. Mrs. McGuire’s default was vacated by stipulation and order on October 16, 2017. (ROA # 52.) Accordingly, the Court considered her opposition.

On October 24, 2017, the Court granted the Receiver Motion, appointing the Receiver to devise a plan to resolve the Property’s violations. (ROA # 58.) Although Mrs. McGuire argued appointment of a receiver was unnecessary, her opposition was unsupported by any admissible evidence.

Mrs. McGuire filed a notice of appeal concerning the Receiver’s appointment on December 21, 2017. (ROA # 79.) The Court was notified that the parties’ appellate mediation session was unsuccessful, and the appeal is proceeding as if the notice of appeal was filed on April 3, 2018. (ROA # 131.) The perfecting of an appeal did not stay enforcement of the order appointing the Receiver since no undertaking (appeal bond) has been obtained. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 917.5; City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 682.)

B. The Receiver’s Motion for Instruction

The Receiver subsequently moved for instruction from the Court concerning how to proceed. In its moving papers, the Receiver initially recommended the Court “authorize a $268,000 Receiver’s Certificate with super-priority status to cover the costs of fully rehabilitating the Property.” (Am. Mot. for Instr. 1:25-27, ROA # 77.) In the alternative, the Receiver stated “[t]he Court could . . . order the Property to be sold as-is to a party with the ability and funds to complete the work[, o]r the Court could again give the owner or the lender the opportunity to act.” (Mem. of P.&A. ISO Am. Mot. for Instr. 2:19 -21, ROA # 67.) The Receiver recommended the Certificate as the best way to proceed because “the sale requires due diligence, delays and oversight,” and “returning possession to the owner or a lender already has a certain result because of the history of the Property prior to the appointment.” (Id. at 2:21-24.)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), who made a purchase-money loan to the McGuires in 1988, and who is secured by a first priority deed of trust recorded against the Property, opposed the motion, contending “[t]he receiver’s requested relief is overreaching and is not authorized by law.” (Wells Fargo Opp’n 1:18, ROA # 72.) Wells Fargo argued, “[t]he amounts the receiver desires to expend appear to have little relationship or proportion to the code violations described by the City’s code enforcement personnel and the receiver. . . . If the Court is inclined to approve borrowing[,] . . . it should be only for the amount the receiver can demonstrate is necessary to secure the property and mitigate the dangerous conditions that pose an immediate threat to the public.” (Id. at 11:28-12:2, 12:26-28.) Wells Fargo further argued: “If a receiver’s certificate in any amount is approved, it should have the priority of an ordinary judgment lien.” (Id. at 1:18-20.)

Mrs. McGuire also opposed the motion, arguing the Receiver’s recommendation “is clearly not in the best interest of anyone except the receiver.” (McGuire Opp’n 1:20-22, ROA #86.) She asserted:

“[T]he bids the receiver obtained are overreaching and excessive and clearly do not define what would bring the home to a state of code compliance but propose a complete remodel of the home so that Mrs. McGuire would have no possible chance of receiving her home back allowing her to do what she wants to do with her home of over 40 years. If the certificate is granted, the home would certainly need to be sold to pay for the massive amount of

debt incurred by the receiver, allowing everyone to benefit from the home except the homeowner.”

(Id. at 5:20-26.)

Mrs. McGuire requested “to be given the opportunity to get her home back[,]” and stated she “will complete the renovations” that [were] abandoned so she “c[an] then rent the property and supplement her income.” (Id. at 6:13-17.) In the alternative, Mrs. McGuire asked to continue “th[e] motion for sixty (60) days to allow [her] limited access to [the Property] for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid” by a licensed contractor to later present to the Court in a supplemental opposition. (Id. at 7:3-11.)

The Receiver’s motion for instruction was originally scheduled for hearing on January 25, 2018. However, in light of Mrs. McGuire’s stated desire to complete the abandoned renovations on her home, which would include remediation of the code violations, the Court found it appropriate to continue the hearing to allow Mrs. McGuire access to the Property with a licensed contractor(s) of her choosing to obtain an independent bid(s) to perform the desired work on the Property, specifically including the work necessary to remedy all code violations. (Minute Order, Jan. 25, 2018, ROA # 95.)

Mrs. McGuire subsequently obtained independent bids to perform various work on her home, and she and the Receiver filed supplemental briefs.

In her supplemental opposition, Mrs. McGuire stated she “wants the Receiver removed and to do the repairs on the home herself.” (Supp. Opp’n 2:19-20, ROA #132.) She said that she “intends on investing some $20,000 to $35,000 of her own funds in the home [and to] rent it out and provide income for her future.” (Id. at 2:20-22.) She “request[ed] to be put back in control [as] the owner, and . . . be allowed to move forward with renovations and rental.” She stated, “[o]f course, the City would have normal oversight of renovation and maintenance and can renew its complaints, if necessary.” (Id. at 2:25-27.)

In support of her supplemental opposition, Mrs. McGuire filed a declaration, in which she averred:

“2. I have owned the home at 2530 Queenwood Way, Rancho Cordova, CA since 1970.

3. I moved with my late husband to Southern California in 2000 and we maintained the home as absentee owners.

3. My son and I went to the property on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2017, with my son Michael McGuire, curing the Notice and Order citations issued by the City of Rancho Cordova. My son would cut the grass, trim the shrubs and trees and ensure general maintenance was done on the home. The home was always secure and

there was an active burglar alarm system. . . .

4. I began a remodel of the interior of the home in 2002. That halted because of problems with the contractor. At that time I didn’t need to rent out the property, and did not intend to live there, but put the project on hold with the intent of finishing it up as soon as I could. I never received any complaints or issues with regard to this.

5. I have reviewed the bids submitted by the receiver in his Motion for Order on Certificate. I have found the bids presented by the receiver to be completely unwarranted and excessive. The extent of the remodeling that the receiver is proposing is not wanted or needed. It clearly exceeds the items as identified in the Notice and Order issued by the City of Rancho Cordova, and further, exceeds any alleged health and safety issues.

6. Pursuant to the Court’s January 25, 2018 order, I obtained my own bids that would clear any health and safety issues presented by the City.”

(McGuire Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, ROA # 133 [paragraph misnumbering in the original].) Multiple estimates/bids were attached as exhibits to Mrs. McGuire’s declaration. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-10, Exs. 2-5.) The estimates totaled approximately $25,000 for work on the home’s interior, flooring, roof repairs, gutters, and tree removal. Mrs. McGuire averred that she “currently has cash in [her] bank accounts amounting to well in excess of what is reasonably necessary to renovate and maintain the home” and “is committed to spending the amount necessary to do so.” (McGuire Decl. ¶ 15.) Her son intends to do the painting himself and to use Home Depot for the flooring. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.)

Mrs. McGuire declared: “I do not want to sell the home for a variety of reasons, including the very adverse tax consequences of doing so.” (McGuire Decl. ¶ 15.) She stated, “[s]elling the property ‘as is’ voids [her] right to continue to own and enjoy the home that she has [48] years of equity in. Further, it will result in a sale for an amount of far less than what [she] could get should she be able to regain control of her property, fix the code violations and do as she sees fit including either renting out the home or selling it at that point for fair market value.” (Supp. Opp’n 4:6-10.) Mrs. McGuire did not provide a time estimate in her supplemental opposition regarding how long it would take to complete the renovations.

In its supplemental reply, the Receiver recommended the Court “confirm an as-is sale . . . to a buyer that agrees to remedy the violations on their own within a set

period.” (Supp. Reply 1:24-28, ROA # 136.) The Receiver stated, “[t]he option of doing the work under th[e] Court’s direction is no longer financially viable.” (Id. at 1:28.) The Receiver contends the Court “has before it no reason that it should rely on th[e McGuires’ estimates] or now switch course and rely on Defendant and her son to do

what they have failed to do since the[ir renovation efforts were] abandoned in 2002.” ( Id. at 2:4-6.)

The Receiver complained about Mrs. McGuire’s bids/estimates as unrealistic. For example, the Receiver pointed out that the estimate for the interior repairs assumes the existing electrical work will pass inspection and does not include a line item for permitting. (Supp. Reply 2:23-3:5.) The Receiver also responded that $30,000 will not cover everything that is necessary, and the estimates provided do not remedy all of the nuisance conditions. (Id. at 3:10-12.) The Receiver also objected that no estimated completion date is provided in Mrs. McGuire’s supplemental filing. (Id. at 4:6-7.) The Receiver argues, “without the projected time frame, the request to recover possession

to complete the work . . . is incomplete.” (Id. at 4:14-17.)

C. The OSC re: the Receiver’s Discharge

In advance of the May 9, 2018 hearing on the Receiver’s Motion for Instruction, the Court issued a tentative ruling ordering the parties to show cause why the Receiver should not be discharged and the Property returned to Mrs. McGuire to remedy the violations herself.

As stated in the tentative ruling, “[a] receivership pending suit is a provisional, equitable remedy.” (Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments & Debts (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 4:850 [citing Southern Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc. v. Banyan Ltd. Partnership (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 910, 922, 925].) “‘A receivership terminates upon completion of the duties for which the receiver was appointed; or at any other time upon court order.’” (O’Flaherty v. Belgum (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1092 (dis. opn.) [quoting Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments & Debts (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 4:940].) “The power of a court of equity to remove or discharge a receiver may be exercised at any stage of the litigation. It is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment . . . and is within the discretion of the court.” (55 Cal.Jur.3d (2004) Receivers § 85 [citing Hozz v. Varga (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 539, 543].)

The Receiver was appointed “to coordinate and monitor the abatement” of violations of the Property pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c). (Order Granting Mot. for Appointment of Receiver p. 2, ¶ 6, ROA # 58.) However, after the Receiver was appointed, Mrs. McGuire declared her intent and financial ability to complete the necessary work to remedy the Property’s violations. Further, Mrs. McGuire opposed the Receiver’s revised recommendation for an “as-is” sale.

Under the circumstances, the Court questioned whether a Receiver remained necessary. (55 Cal.Jur.3d (2004) Receivers § 85 [“The power of a court of equity to remove or discharge a receiver may be exercised at any stage of the litigation. It is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment . . . and is within the discretion of the court.”] [citing Hozz v. Varga (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 539, 543].) But the Court also recognized the potential shortcomings in Mrs. McGuire’s independent estimates/bids, including: the lack of a time estimate to complete the work and an apparent failure to discuss her desire and/or ability to complete the repairs if they prove more costly than she estimates (including the permitting costs and additional electrical work the Receiver referenced in its supplemental reply). Therefore, the Court scheduled a further hearing on the OSC and ordered Mrs. McGuire to file a supplemental brief concerning the referenced deficiencies and a plan to ensure regularly scheduled lawn

maintenance and general property clean up occur. The Court also allowed any other party and the Receiver to file a supplemental brief concerning the Receiver’s proposed discharge.

In the interim, the Court ordered the Receiver to take no further action regarding the Property pending the Court’s decision on the OSC, with the exception of filing a supplemental brief concerning its proposed discharge. The Court also ordered Mrs. McGuire to immediately ensure the lawn is maintained and continuing property cleanup is done.

On May 25, 2018, Mrs. McGuire filed a supplemental brief, in which she stated she “intends on moving forward with the renovations and rental of her home[,] has access to the funds required, and a back up plan should costs exceed her available funding.” (McGuire Supp. Br. 1:21-23, ROA # 158.) In support of her supplemental brief, Mrs. McGuire filed a declaration, in which she averred:

“2. My son and I have developed an interior remodel plan that provides for the completion of the kitchen remodel and addition. This will be completed first, then the new partition wall in the dining room/front entry area. I anticipate that my contractor, Paul Smith, will have this finished by the end of August 2018. Then the new flooring and painting can be completed by the first of October 2018. I also anticipate the front and rear landscaping will be completed during the time that the interior remodel is being [done], and will be done by the end of August 2018.

3. If the remodel stays within the anticipated budget of $20,000 – $30,000, I will then complete additional work including new sliding glass patio doors, redwood decks and additional landscaping.

4. I have scheduled installation of new gutters on the front left half of the home for May 30, 2018. The roof repair and the installation of the leaf guards on the new gutters are scheduled for May 31, 2018.

5. I am financially able to pay for the permitting fees and/or electrical as required to complete the remodel. I have funds available to pay for all work as proposed in the estimate for the remodel including the permitting and electrical. In the alternative, there is more than enough equity in my home to take out a loan to pay for any such permitting fees and/or electrical, as needed. Finally, if the process becomes too burdensome, I would be prepared to sell the home as a last resort.

6. I am in the process of hiring a gardener to maintain the lawn and pruning on a weekly or biweekly basis, as needed. It is anticipated that a gardener will commence work in the first week of June 2018.”

(McGuire Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, ROA # 159.)

On June 1, 2018, the City filed an opposition to the Receiver’s Discharge. (ROA #

160.) The City contended Mrs. McGuire “cannot, has not, and will not remedy the well-documented substandard conditions at the Property, and . . . discharging the Receiver outright is an unduly harsh result that is not necessary here.” (City Opp’n 2:4-7, ROA # 160.)

The City stated its complaints relating to the Property “date back to 2010[,]” and “[b] etween 2012 and 2016, the City returned to the Property over forty (40) times and issued forty-four (44) administrative citations.” (City Opp’n 2:11-19.) The City argued, “it was only during the brief time the Receiver has had some control over the property, that [its] condition had improved.” (Id. at 3:9-10.) The City further argued:

“Since turning the property over to the Defendant on May 9, 2018, . . . it is apparent [she] has done nothing to remedy or abate any of the exterior blight, overgrown vegetation, or remove the inoperable vehicle. [Citation.] . . . Further, the power lines and electrical lines are dangerously intertwined with the electrical pole behind the Defendant’s Property, and as such, pose an immediate fire threat as fire season approaches. [Citation.]”

(City Opp’n 3:13-19.) The City asserted, “at all relevant times when Defendant is in control of the Property, it has remained completely unimproved[, and n]othing material or plausible has been submitted by Defendant that should give the Court any reasonable assurances that any of this will change now.” (Id. at 4:3-5.)

Accordingly, the City requested the Receiver not be discharged, and if the Receiver agreed to its discharge, the City asked for leave to appoint a new receiver. In the alternative, the City argued the Court could “use its discretion to temporarily stay the Receiver for a period of 90-180 days” and lift the stay “[i]f the Property’s various nuisances have not been abated by that point.” (City Opp’n 7:8-10, 7:27-8:3.) The City concluded, “whatever the Court decides, it should not . . . discharge the Receiver outright without any enforceable accountability that will ensure the Property is rehabilitated to abate the nuisances.” (Id. at 8:5-7.)

The Receiver did not file a supplemental brief supporting or opposing its discharge. Instead, on June 4, 2018, the Receiver filed a motion for discharge, exoneration of surety, and final accounting, which it noticed for hearing on July 18, 2018. (ROA #164.) As no final decision on the OSC had been made, the Receiver’s motion was premature and the July 18, 2018 hearing date was vacated.

After considering the parties’ supplemental filings, the Court found Mrs. McGuire and the City’s interests would best be balanced by staying the receivership through October 31, 2018, to give Mrs. McGuire the opportunity to remedy the Property’s nuisance violations herself. A further hearing was scheduled for October 31, 2018, to discuss the status of Mrs. McGuire’s renovations/nuisance abatement efforts. (Minute Order, June 25, 2018, ROA # 171.)

Mrs. McGuire was ordered to file supplemental briefs no later than July 10, 2018, and October 15, 2018, informing the Court of the progress made. Her October 15, 2018

brief was ordered to be accompanied by admissible evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of work done, such as declarations, invoices, and/or photographs. The City was ordered to file a response with similar evidentiary support no later than October 22, 2018. (Minute Order, June 25, 2018, at p. 7.)

Filings since the June 25, 2018 Hearing

On July 10, 2018, Mrs. McGuire filed a declaration, with several attached exhibits, concerning work done on the Property. She avers in relevant part:

2. My son and I have developed an interior remodel plan that provides for the completion of the kitchen addition and a new partition wall in the dining room/font [sic] entry area. My original contractor, Paul Smith, has recently indicated that he will be unable to start the remodel until December 2018. I am now interviewing other contractors and will balance their bids, if more costly, against the opportunity cost of foregone rental income due to waiting for Paul Smith. I anticipate the front and rear landscaping will be completed by the end of August.

3. If repairing the roof, landscaping, completing the kitchen addition, new flooring, and painting stays within the anticipated budget of $20,000 – $30,000,I will then complete additional remodeling including adding sliding glass patio doors to all rooms at the back of the home that will open on to a new house wide redwood deck.

4. New gutters on the front left half of the home have been completed by Steelhead Gutters. A copy of the invoice is attached as Exhibit A.

5. The roof repair has been completed. This included installing leaf guards in all of the gutters. A copy of the paid invoice is attached as Exhibit B.

6. ADT replaced elements of the security system destroyed by the Receiver and/or City Code Enforcement Officers during their September 12, 2017 illegal break in to the home. The wired door from the kitchen to the garage that had been removed from its hinges and was left off its hinges for the time the Receiver was in control of the house, was also placed back on its hinges, the door locked and secured.

7. I had hired D. Valdez to handle the lawn but his services were not working out and have now hired AV Landscaping, the long time gardener of a neighbor. A current picture of the home is attached as Exhibit C.

8. Since I have owned the home, every two to three years SMUD has inspected the power lines

throughout the neighborhood and scheduled pruning of trees near the lines to keep them clear. SMUD inspected the lines in early April and left a door hanger stating that they would be in the neighborhood pruning in the next 4-8 weeks or soon thereafter. After finding the door hanger, my son, Michael McGuire, called Richard Dye, the Vegetation Work Planner named on the door hanger, and was told SMUD would be in the area between early and late July. I am informed and believe that my attorney’s office spoke with Mr. Dye on July 5, 2018 and he indicated that the work is now scheduled to be completed in August 2018.

9. The car in the driveway has current registration. The right front tire is flat and will not hold air. New tires will be installed this month. As far as I know, apart from the tire, all systems are in working order. A copy of the registration is attached as Exhibit D

10. . . . . In the early evening of May 10th, my son, Michael McGuire, sustained an injury to his suprapatellar bursitis.”

(McGuire Decl., July 10, 2018, ¶¶ 2-10, ROA # 175.) The attached invoices evince the stated gutter repairs totaled $528.00 and the roof repairs/leaf guard installation totaled $1,309.00. (Id., Exs. A, B.)

On October 15, 2018, Mrs. McGuire filed additional declarations signed by herself and her son. She avers in her declaration:

“2. My son and I were unable to locate another licensed contractor, with workers’ compensation insurance, who could complete the job with significant time savings over contractor Paul Smith. My son recently told me that he spoke with Paul Smith and Mr. Smith indicated that he still anticipates being able to start the job in December 2018.

3. AV Landscaping has been maintaining the front lawn/landscaping on a weekly basis since July 2018. There is ivy ground cover rather than lawn in the back yard.

4. I had originally anticipated the front and rear landscaping would be completed by the end of August. My son has been planning on doing the landscaping himself; however the knee injury he suffered in May has taken much longer to heal than was anticipated. I received an estimate of $1,250 from the present landscaper to do major elements of the landscaping in case my son is not able to do so before the end of the prime fall planting season.

5. To my knowledge, SMUD has not cleared the power lines. SMUD indicated they would complete the work and they have my contact information to gain access to the

backyard when they are in the area.

6. I had anticipated installing new tires on the Toyota Crown in July; however, whenever we were in town, the Rancho Cordova Costco was out of stock as they still are. My son therefore purchased the tires at the Richmond Costco and will transport them to the house, as there is an appointment to install the tires at the Rancho Cordova Costco on October 19, 2018.

7. All bills are current and up to date at the house which includes Wells Fargo Mortgage, Property Tax, SMUD, PG&E, Golden State Water, Sacramento County Utilities (Sewer/Storm Drain), CSAA Home Insurance, AT&T, ADT Security and Allied Waste.

8. In September, my son and the neighbor at 2507 Knightwood way arranged for the repair of the common rear fence between the properties.”

(McGuire Decl., Oct. 15, 2018, ¶¶ 2-8, ROA # 182.)

Michael McGuire declares in his October 15, 2018 declaration:

2. I have been assisting my elderly mother with the matters related to her home.

3. My mom and I were unable to locate another licensed contractor, with workers’ compensation insurance, who would be able to complete the job with significant time savings over Paul Smith.

4. On Saturday October 13, 2018, I spoke with contractor Paul Smith and he indicated that he still anticipates being able to begin the job in December 2018.

5. I was planning on doing the landscaping myself; however the knee injury I suffered in May has taken much longer to heal than was anticipated. I received an estimate of $1,250 from AV landscaping to do major elements of the landscaping in case I am not able to do so before the end of the prime fall planting season.

6. Whenever we were in town I checked the Rancho Cordova Costco for the required size of tires for the Toyota Crown and they were always out of stock as they still are. The Richmond Costco had the size in stock so they were purchased there and will be transported to the house so they can be installed at the Rancho Cordova Costco on October 19, 2018.

7. In September 2018, I arranged for the repair

of the common rear fence with the neighbor at 2507 Knightwood Way, Rancho Cordova.”

(Decl. of Michel McGuire, Oct. 15, 2018, ¶¶ 2-7, ROA # 183.)

The City filed a supplemental memorandum on October 22, 2018, in which it requests the Court lift the stay because Mrs. McGuire has neither made sufficient progress nor demonstrated the nature and extent of work done. The City essentially argues Mrs.

McGuire “has shown, even with the assistance of her son and competent counsel, [that] this process is too burdensome for her.” (City Supp. Mem. 7:4-6, ROA # 187.) In support of its supplemental memorandum, the City filed declarations by its counsel and a Code Enforcement Supervisor, Ryan Taylor. Mr. Taylor’s declaration includes his personal observations regarding the Property. He avers, among other things, that as of 5:03 p.m. on October 19, 2018, he observed the vehicle unmoved with flat tires. (Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 10, 11, ROA # 188.)

The Receiver filed his Third Report on October 19, 2018, in which he states his current opinions concerning the Property. The Receiver stated that although “the current conditions on the Property do not appear to present the emergency that would require the Receiver to re-take possession to prevent an immediate danger to any occupants[, t]here is a fire risk posed by the Property[,]” and “it is [his] opinion that the work will not be done without some other involvement, whether that is by this Court or a charity or some other third party.” (Receiver’s Third Report ¶¶ 9, 10, ROA # 186.) The Receiver further declares,

“12. At the last hearing on this matter, I conveyed the offer from the Receiver to write off the fees and costs incurred by the Receiver if the [McGuires were] to actually complete the abatement work by this hearing (then five months away). This was done to incentivize the parties to complete the tasks at hand and to try to bring this matter to some sort of resolution, even if it required writing off the fees and costs the Court had already authorized. But at this time, the receivership Property appears to be in the exact same state that it was at the time of the appointment, and five months prior when Respondents re-took possession. With all due respect to Respondents, they have proven that they cannot complete the work on their own, and further extensions or continuances are not likely to yield any different results.

13. Because of all of this, my own recommendation and the analysis provided in the previous reports and motions remains the same. The Court should authorize the sale of the Property to a third party that can complete the work under the Court’s supervision. To do anything else just postpones the resolution of this matter.”

(Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13.)

Continuance of the Stay

The Court finds itself in a difficult position. Although Mrs. McGuire has repeatedly stated her intention and financial ability to remedy the code violations, which resulted in the Receiver being appointed approximately one year ago, insufficient work has been undertaken to demonstrate her ability to complete the necessary work in a timely manner. No work has been done to date on the Property’s interior.

However, the Court disagrees with the City and the Receiver’s shared position that the Property remains in the same condition as when Mrs. McGuire was given back possession. As shown in Mrs. McGuire and her son’s declarations, they have arranged and paid for gutter installations, roof repairs, and weekly lawn maintenance. They have also repaired and reactivated the ADT home security system, which was disabled during the September 12, 2017 inspection of the Property. Mr. McGuire also declares he purchased tires for the vehicle that sits on the Property. However, it appears the tires were not installed on October 19, 2018, as scheduled, and the Court does not have any additional information concerning the McGuires’ plans for the vehicle.

After considering the parties’ respective supplemental filings, the Court remains of the opinion that Mrs. McGuire and the City’s interests are best balanced by continuing the stay of the receivership to January 11, 2019, to allow Mrs. McGuire additional time to take concrete steps to remedy the Property’s nuisance violations herself. However, the Court notes it shall entertain a motion to lift the stay and authorize the Receiver to market and sell the Property to a third party with the ability and funds to remedy the nuisance conditions if Mrs. McGuire does not demonstrate to the Court by that time the following:

· Any and all front and rear landscaping work necessary to abate code violations is completed;

· Any code violations concerning the subject vehicle are abated;

· Work on the Property’s interior is firmly scheduled to commence by a licensed contractor (either Paul Smith/Smith’s Home Repair License # 682570 or an alternative contractor) no later than January 2019;

· The fire hazard posed by the electrical lines in the rear yard is abated (by SMUD or otherwise); and

· The weekly lawn maintenance is continued.

The Court recognizes Mrs. McGuire’s advanced age and the fact that she and her son live in the Bay area may make it more difficult to complete the above tasks. However, those continuing circumstances will not excuse a failure to comply with this order.

Accordingly, a further hearing is scheduled for January 11, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. in this Department to discuss the status of Mrs. McGuire’s renovations/nuisance abatement efforts. Mrs. McGuire shall file a supplemental brief no later than January 4, 2019, informing the Court of the progress made. Her brief shall be accompanied by admissible evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of work done, such as declarations, invoices, and/or photographs. Conclusory/vague averments are insufficient; detail is required. Further, specifically concerning the interior renovations, Mrs. McGuire shall file with her supplemental brief a revised estimate and/or declaration from the licensed contractor chosen to do the repairs, providing: cost

estimates for the proposed work, the date the work is scheduled to commence, and an estimated completion date. The scope of repairs/renovations must encompass any and all work necessary to abate the code violations. Further, the Court notes to the extent Michael McGuire intends to perform some of the abatement efforts himself, alternative arrangements must be made if he is unable to do so within the referenced time limits, due to his knee injury or otherwise.

The City may also file a response with similar evidentiary support no later than January 4, 2019. Further, the City can move to lift the stay earlier, if it deems necessary.

Notwithstanding this tentative ruling, the parties are ordered to appear at the October 31, 2018 hearing.