Pacific Palms Condominium Assocation vs Phillip S Woyak

Case Number

18CV01192

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 11/18/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for an OSC re Contempt

Tentative Ruling

Pacific Palms Condominium Association v. Phillip S. Woynak                                  Case No. 18CV01192     

Hearing Date: November 18, 2024                                        

HEARING:              Plaintiff’s Motion For an Order to Show Cause re Contempt, Sanctions, and Attorney Fees

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’s for an order to show cause re contempt, sanctions, and attorney fees is granted. The court has reviewed the proposed order and intends on signing it as the order of the court. Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing to discuss dates to be included in the order.

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.)

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 initially by mail. On April 28, 2024, Woyak was personally served with the Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction.

On July 31, 2023, PPCA filed a motion to enforce judgment. On September 11, 2023, the motion was denied because PPCA was attempting to seek relief that was not prayed for by way of the complaint.

On November 8, 2023, PPCA filed a motion for an order to show cause re contempt, sanctions, and attorney fees. On February 26, 2024, the motion was denied without prejudice because it was procedurally defective.

PPCA again seeks an order to show cause re contempt, sanctions, and attorney fees. PPCA has corrected the procedural issues which caused the November 8, 2023, motion to be denied. Woyak was timely personally served with the motion on September 18, 2024.

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

Analysis:

“Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court” is an act or omission constituting contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. (a)(5).)

“A trial court may take action to punish contempt under section 1218 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The elements of proof necessary to support punishment for contempt are: (1) a valid court order, (2) the alleged contemnor’s knowledge of the order, and (3) noncompliance. [Citations.] The order must be clear, specific, and unequivocal.” (In re Marcus (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1014.)

“Upon the answer and evidence taken, the court or judge shall determine whether the person proceeded against is guilty of the contempt charged, and if it be adjudged that the person is guilty of the contempt, a fine may be imposed on the person not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), payable to the court, or the person may be imprisoned not exceeding five days, or both. In addition, a person who is subject to a court order as a party to the action, or any agent of this person, who is adjudged guilty of contempt for violating that court order may be ordered to pay to the party initiating the contempt proceeding the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by this party in connection with the contempt proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1218, subd. (a).)

“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.)

As noted above, Woyak was personally served with a certified copy of the Judgment.

PPCA has provided evidence, by way of the declaration of PPCA’s property manager, Robert Bartlein, that Woyak continues to violate the court orders by (1) continuing to maintain the property in an unclean and unsanitary condition, (2) using multiple motor vehicles to store trash, clothing, equipment, and other materials in a manner that renders them visible to the public, (3) refusing to allow entry by Association representatives, and (4) failing to comply with the HOA governing documents. Bartlein attached photographs to his declaration as Exhibits 2 - 4, taken on June 13, 2023, January 29, 2024, and June 27, 2024, showing that Woyak’s property is still being ill maintained and is littered with various items.

The Bartlein declaration also describes numerous attempts by PPCA to resolve the issues with Woyak short of the present motion. Those efforts were unsuccessful.

Despite numerous attempts to persuade Woyak to comply with the Judgment, by PPCA, Woyak appears to be continuing in his refusal to comply. The motion will be granted, and Woyak will be ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt and ordered to pay monetary sanctions and fees.