Facts

Plaintiff Catherine Eldridge is a long-term tenant of the Village Trailer Park in Santa Monica. In 2000, she was one of the plaintiffs in another action against the park relating to habitability of the park. On Feb. 13, 2003, in that action, on what was to be the first day of trial, she reached a settlement with VTP Inc., which included an agreement that the park would take no action that would cause her to have to move her mobile home or that would affect the use of her mobile home space. The agreement also included that VTP would not move Eldridge for any reason including lot lines, unless legally required. This agreement was put on the record before the Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Cesar C. Sarmiento, who presided over that case as well as the instant case.

In 2006, Village Trailer Park LLC purchased an interest in the Village Trailer Park with a view to closing the trailer park and redeveloping the Santa Monica property on which it sat. VTP Inc., Village Trailer Park LLC, and real estate developer Marc Luzzatto began taking actions to try to close the park and begin to make way for a mixed-use development.

In 2011, plaintiff filed a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that her 2003 agreement with VTP Inc. barred defendants from attempting to evict her from the trailer park to make way for redevelopment.

Plaintiff sought a declaration that defendants had no right to do anything that would affect plaintiff's use of her space or cause her to have to move her home, including attempting to relocate plaintiff or attempting to close the trailer park or redevelop the land upon which the trailer park is located in a way that would cause plaintiff to have to move from her home or space at the park.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that the 2003 agreement did not bar them from evicting plaintiff or closing the trailer park. Defendants argued that in 2003 the lawyer for VTP did not have authority to enter into the agreement with plaintiff. Defendants also contended that the agreement did not bar eviction of plaintiff, and that the settlement on the record could not be enforced because it violated the statute of frauds. Defendant claimed that plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of laches.

Result

After a two-day bench trial, the court issued a statement of decision, finding that defendants had ratified and were bound by the agreement they entered into with plaintiff in 2003 and therefore were barred from terminating plaintiff's lease agreement for any reason unless compelled to do so by the government. The court awarded plaintiff's counsel $146,970 in attorney fees.

Other Information

Months following the issuance of the court's statement of decision, the defendants substituted out their attorney of record and hired McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. The new attorneys took the position that only the first phase had been tried. They filed a motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint and amend their answer to the complaint. The motion was denied. Defendants have appealed both from the judgment and from the order awarding attorney fees. The lawsuit changed the shape of the development. Because of the outcome of the trial, part of trailer park is being preserved. A 10-space mini park, which includes plaintiff's mobile home space, will adjoin the mixed-use development on the site of the park. FILING DATE: July 13, 2011.