Barry v. OC Residential Properties
Barry v. OC Residential Properties
(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 861
In the case of Barry v. OC Residential Properties LLC (2011), the plaintiff, Shelby E. Barry, filed a petition in the superior court to determine the redemption price for her unit in a common interest development. The defendant, OC Residential Properties, LLC, had acquired the unit through a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court determined the amount due for redemption to be $18,148.71, which included expenses incurred by the defendant for maintenance and repair work on the property, an electric bill, and interest on the foreclosure sale purchase price.
Shelby Barry challenged the inclusion of these amounts in the redemption price and questioned the constitutionality of the procedure for determining the redemption amount. However, the court found no error and affirmed the order.
The facts of the case revealed that the plaintiff had acquired a unit in a common interest development in 1977 and had leased it to others over the years. Due to the plaintiff's failure to pay monthly association fees, the property underwent a foreclosure sale in 2009, with OC Residential Properties purchasing the unit. The defendant conducted repairs and maintenance on the property, intending to resell it.
Barry's petition contested the redemption amount set by the trustee, arguing against including repair expenses, utility payments, and interest in the redemption price. The trial court, after a hearing, upheld the redemption price, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove that the work performed by the defendant was not for reasonable maintenance, upkeep, and repair of the property.
The case involved the right of redemption in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, specifically in the context of a common interest development. The court applied Code of Civil Procedure section 729.060, which outlines the components of the redemption price, including the purchase price, assessments, taxes, and amounts for property maintenance and repair. The burden of proof in challenging the redemption price rested on the person seeking redemption.
Plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the redemption procedure, claiming a lack of due process, was rejected by the court. The court emphasized that the statutory procedure provided an opportunity for a noticed hearing before a judicial tribunal to challenge the redemption amount.
Moreover, the court addressed the defendant's right to enter and repair the unit, emphasizing that the foreclosure sale gave OC Residential Properties the statutory right to enter the property for repairs and maintenance. The court rejected claims of trespassing and confirmed the legality of the defendant's actions.
The court also considered the repair and maintenance expenses claimed by the defendant. Plaintiff's arguments against the validity of repair costs were dismissed, and the court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioner, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 729.070.
Finally, the court denied plaintiff's request for an offset, stating that interest on the purchase price was a valid component of the redemption price under Code of Civil Procedure section 729.060. The incomplete repair work was attributed to plaintiff's repossession of the unit during the rehabilitation process.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the order determining the redemption price, upholding the inclusion of repair expenses and rejecting the plaintiff's constitutional and procedural challenges.