Pacific Palms Condominium Association v. Phillip S. Woynak

Case Number

18CV01192

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/11/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion of Plaintiff to Enforce Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Pacific Palms Condominium Association v. Phillip S. Woynak                                                                                                     (Judge Sterne)

Case No. 18CV01192

Hearing Date: September 11, 2023                                       

HEARING:              Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Judgment

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Pacific Palms Condominium Association: Norman S. Wisnicki

                                    For Defendant Phillip S. Woyak: No appearance.

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of plaintiff Pacific Palms Condominium Association to enforce judgment is denied.

Background:

This action commenced on March 8, 2018, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Pacific Palms Condominium Association (“PPCA”) against defendant Phillip S. Woyak for: (1) Breach of Covenants; and (2) Nuisance.

As alleged in the complaint: Woyak owns property that is subject to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&R’s”) of PPCA. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 5, 7.) Almost immediately after moving into the property, Woyak has “engaged in intentional acts designed to harass, offend, disrupt, and/or cause a nuisance to other owners, residents, employees, and guests in [PPCA], all of which constitute violations of the Governing Documents and a private nuisance.” (Id., at ¶ 8.) Violations include: (1) Maintaining the property in an unclean and unsanitary condition with an excessive accumulation of waste, trash, garbage, and miscellaneous items; (2) Using multiple vehicles to store trash, clothing, equipment, and other materials which are visible to the public; (3) Refusing to allow entry onto the property by PPCA representatives to ensure that the conditions are addressed and abated; and (4) Failing to comply with the CC&R’s. (Ibid.) Woyak has been repeatedly asked to correct the conditions on his property and to comply with the CC&R’s, but he has failed to do so. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

By way of a prayer for damages, PPCA sought:

“l. A judgment declaring that the activities set forth hereinabove constitute a continuing, private nuisance to the Association, and that Defendants, and each of them, be permanently enjoined and restrained from so conducting themselves, or from using or permitting the use of the unit and/or the complex in such a manner;

“2. An order requiring Defendants to show cause, if any they have, why they

should not be enjoined as hereinafter set forth, during the pendency of this action;

“3. A temporary restraining order enjoining and restraining Defendants, and each of them, their children, grandchildren, agents, servants, employees, tenants, guests, co-owners, co-occupants, and/or anyone living or working with Defendants, and all persons acting in concert or participating with or for them, from:

“a. Maintaining the Property, including, but not limited to, its interior,exterior walkway areas, yard, and patio, in an unclean and unsanitary condition, such that there is an excessive accumulation of waste, trash, garbage, and miscellaneous items, thereby constituting a fire, safety and health hazard, and likely causing a termite infestation;

“b. Using multiple motor vehicles to store trash, clothing, equipment, and/ or other materials, in a manner which renders them visible to the public at large;

“c. Refusing to allow entry by Association representatives into the Property to ensure that the unsanitary conditions are addressed and abated, and that the Property is properly cleaned, maintained, and rendered safe and sanitary; and

“d. Failing to comply with the Governing Documents.

“4. A preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from:

“a. Maintaining the Property, including, but not limited to, its interior, exterior walkway areas, yard, and patio, in an unclean and unsanitary condition, such that there is an excessive accumulation of waste, trash, garbage, and miscellaneous items, thereby constituting a fire, safety and health hazard, and likely causing a termite infestation;

“b. Using multiple motor vehicles to store trash, clothing, equipment, and/or other materials, in a manner which renders them visible to the public at large;

“c. Refusing to allow entry by Association representatives into the Property to ensure that the unsanitary conditions are addressed and abated, and that the Property is properly cleaned, maintained, and rendered safe and sanitary; and

“d. Failing to comply with the Governing Documents.

“5. An Injunction ordering Defendants to remediate all of the unsanitary

conditions, or allow the Association entry to do so.

“6. Upon final hearing thereof, that said injunction be made permanent;

“7. Damages against Defendants, and each of them, in a sum within the

jurisdiction of the Superior Court and according to proof at the time of trial.

“8. Payment to the Association of the costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent allowed by law; and

“9. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.” (Complaint, prayer for relief.)

After obtaining an order permitting service by publication, Woyak was served via publication on May 18, May 25, June 1, and June 8, 2018. Woyak did not file an answer or other responsive document to the complaint. On July 17, 2018, default was entered against Woyak.

On July 12, 2019, judgment and a permanent injunction was entered in favor of PPCA and against Woyak. Pursuant to the judgment, it was ordered:

“1. The Association is entitled to judgment against Default Defendant pursuant to the Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions for the Association recorded in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office of Santa Barbara County (the “CC&Rs” or “Governing Documents”).

“2. The Association shall recover from Default Defendant the sum of $13,464.50, which represents (a) attorneys’ fees in the sum of $12,662.25 and (b) costs in the sum of $802.25.

“3. Additionally, a permanent injunction, as specifically prayed for at pages 6-7 of the Complaint (hereinafter such section in the Complaint shall be referred to as the “Prayer”), is granted as follows:

“Default Defendant, his family members, agents, employees, servants, tenants, guests, co-owners, co-occupants, and/or all persons living in, occupying, or working at 385 Pacific Oaks, Goleta, California 93117 (the “Subject Property”), and each of them are hereby enjoined from acting and/or allowing others to act in, the following manner:

“a. Maintaining the Subject Property, including, but not limited to, its interior, exterior walkway areas, yard, and patio, in an unclean and unsanitary condition, such that there is an excessive accumulation of waste, trash, garbage, and miscellaneous items, thereby constituting a fire, safety and health hazard, and likely causing a termite infestation [Prayer, ¶ 4(a), ¶¶ 5-6];

“b. Using multiple motor vehicles to store trash, clothing, equipment, and/or materials, in a manner which renders them visible to the public at large [Prayer, ¶ 4(b), ¶ 5-6]; and

“c. Refusing to allow entry by Association representatives into the Subject Property to ensure the unsanitary conditions are addressed and abated and that the Subject Property is properly cleaned, maintained, and rendered safe and sanitary [Prayer, ¶ 4(c), ¶¶ 5-6].

“4. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify this injunction and to enforce the terms of the Judgment.”

The judgment and notice of entry of judgment were filed and served on July 26, 2019. Service on Woyak was by mail.

PPCA now moves for an order enforcing judgment. By way of the motion, PPCA seeks the following order:

“1. The Association’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (“Motion”) is Granted;

“2. Default Defendant is ordered, solely at his own expense, to maintain 385 Pacific Oaks, Goleta, California 93117 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”) in a clean and sanitary condition, as set forth below:

“a. Within thirty (30) calendar day from the date of this Order, Default Defendant is ordered to allow Association representatives access into the exterior of the Subject Property, including, but not limited to, the front lawn, the area around the front door, the area in front of the garage, and the area around the back gate. Association representatives are allowed to clean such areas and dispose of all excessive accumulation of personal effects, waste, trash, and garbage pursuant to the provisions of the Association Governing Documents (the “Clean-Up Project”);

“b. Default Defendant is ordered to provide, during the course of the Clean-Up Project, access to Association representatives to the Subject Property to inspect, document, and perform the clean-up work;

“c. The Association shall give written notice (the “Notice”) to Default Defendant of not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to access of the Subject Property. Notice shall be given by U.S. Mail and by posting Notice on the front of the Subject Property;

“d. Access to the Subject Property exterior shall be continuous from 9:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted, from the commencement of the Clean-Up Project and continuing until completion of same; and

“e. Default Defendant shall bear all reasonable costs and expenses

incurred by the Association in the course of the Clean-Up Project.

“3. The Association shall recover from Default Defendant the sum of $2,847.50

for the preparation of this Motion, which represents:

“a. Attorneys’ fees in the sum of $2,787.50; and

“b. Costs in the sum of $60.00.

“4. The Court retains jurisdiction to modify this Order and to enforce the terms of this Order and the Judgment.” (Proposed Order, pp. 1-2.)

The motion, along with supporting declarations and a request for judicial notice, was served on Woyak, via overnight mail, on July 31, 2023.

Woyak has not filed an opposition to the motion or any other response.

Analysis:

“Except as otherwise provided by statute:

“(a) A money judgment is enforceable as provided in Division 2 (commencing with Section 695.010).

“(b) A judgment for possession of personal property is enforceable as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 714.010) of Division 3.

“(c) A judgment for possession of real property is enforceable as provided in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 715.010) of Division 3.

“(d) A judgment for sale of real or personal property is enforceable as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 716.010) of Division 3.

“(e) A judgment requiring performance of an act not described in subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, or requiring forbearance from performing an act, is enforceable as provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 717.010) of Division 3.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 681.010.)

“A judgment not otherwise enforceable pursuant to this title may be enforced by personally serving a certified copy of the judgment on the person required to obey it and invoking the power of the court to punish for contempt.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 717.010.)

Here, PPCA is not seeking to enforce a money judgment, a judgment for possession of personal property, or a judgment for possession of real property. Thus, Code of Civil Procedure section 717.010 sets forth the means of enforcement. PPCA has provided no persuasive authority that the court may enforce the judgment in any other manner than as proscribed by statute. In this case, despite the argument presented by PPCA, the proper remedy is a code-compliant contempt action against Woyak.

Further, the proposed order seeks relief that is outside that which is prayed for in the complaint. For example, PPCA is requesting that they be given authority to enter onto Woyak’s property and dispose of his personal things. Despite the argument that the items PPCA wants to dispose of are “waste, trash, and garbage,” Woyak may not believe that to be the case. The court is aware of no legal authority that would permit an order that allows PPCA to simply take and dispose of Woyak’s personal property.

As noted above, this action was decided by way of default. “The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a).) “The primary purpose of this section is to ensure that defendants in cases which involve a default judgment have adequate notice of the judgments that may be taken against them. [Citation.] ‘ “If a judgment other than that which is demanded is taken against him, (the defendant) has been deprived of his day in court a right to a hearing on the matter adjudicated.’ ” [Citations.]” (Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 493.)

To grant PPCA’s motion and sign the proposed order, as drafted, would violate Woynak’s right to  hearing regarding the additional relief requested.  Thus,  PPCA’s motion must be denied.