Facts

Defendant entered into a rental agreement for the rental of a single family, custom built home from the Wiener Family Trust. After defendant occupied the home for over a year, plaintiffs inspected the home and found the kitchen portion to be in unsafe and unsanitary condition due to unreported long-term water leakage. Plaintiffs served a Three Day Notice to Quit for Waste, followed by a complaint alleging unlawful detainer and damages from waste. Defendant defaulted and a Writ of Possession issued. Before the Writ could be executed upon, defendant successfully moved to set aside the default.

On Dec. 17, 2009, plaintiffs and defendant reached a settlement that required defendant to vacate the premises, forfeit the security deposit of $30,000, pay additional amounts and continue to pay rent at a reduced rate while the repairs were completed, and at full value from completion until the premises could be re-let. Defendant did not timely vacate, and, on ex-parte application, the settlement was entered as a judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 on Dec. 31, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce the Judgment and Enter Money Judgment contending that defendant failed to perform the conditions of the judgment requiring rent to be paid and caused additional damage, and served it on defendant's initial counsel, who remained counsel of record although their representation of defendant ceased almost immediately after the Settlement Agreement was entered.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of $91,464 for past due rent, new late fees, and additional damages.

Result

On Nov. 9, 2010, the court entered a money judgment against defendant in the amount of $81,500 for past due rent. Plaintiffs obtained a writ of execution and the judgment has been satisfied in full from enforcement of that writ.

Other Information

Defendant's initial counsel advised plaintiffs' counsel they no longer represented defendant. All counsel attempted to contact defendant to notify him of the proceedings but were unsuccessful. As a result, defendant's initial counsel was forced to file an ex parte application to dismiss the case and/or to be relieved as counsel. In seeking dismissal, defendant's attorneys argued that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, plaintiff had a duty to dismiss the action upon payment of certain sums set forth in the settlement agreement. Plaintiff's duty to dismiss the action was not contingent on any other terms in the settlement agreement. Defendant paid to plaintiff the amounts called for in the settlement agreement. Plaintiff filed an unconditional Notice of Settlement, affirming that the matter would be dismissed within 45 days. In requesting to be relieved as counsel, defense counsel's asserted their representation of defendant ended well before the expiration of this 45-day period. Clark never contacted their office again in regards to this matter. The application for dismissal was denied; the request to be relieved as counsel was granted.