City of Chula Vista v. Gutierrez
207 Cal. App. 4th 681
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gutierrez owned a four-unit building in Chula Vista; she defaulted on a $440,000 loan later held by Wachovia.
- City inspections in 2008 led to a petition for appointment of a receiver under Health and Safety Code § 17980.7.
- CRG was appointed as receiver; Adams served as the receiver and performed duties, with the court noting the order did not apply to Wachovia.
- Lenders foreclosed in 2010; Wachovia acquired the property via a $330,424 credit bid and later sold it.
- Adams sought a receivership fee lien and then direct payment from Wachovia; the court limited charges against Wachovia.
- Final order discharged the receiver and authorized Wachovia to pay $408.33 for the receiver’s file review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment of Wachovia by receiver fees | Adams argues Wachovia benefited and should pay all fees. | Wachovia contends no direct liability; no clear benefit conferred. | No abuse; court may not impose direct liability on Wachovia. |
| Section 17980.7 direct liability and lien on property | Wachovia, as successor in interest, should bear fees under § 17980.7. | Statute allows a lien on the property but does not create direct liability for the owner. | Section 17980.7 does not impose direct liability; recovery via lien, not direct payment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ephraim v. Pacific Bank, 129 Cal. 589 (1900) (fees charged to parties who requested the receiver)
- First Nationwide Savings v. Perry, 11 Cal.App.4th 1657 (1992) (unjust enrichment doctrine applicability)
- California Federal Bank v. Matreyek, 8 Cal.App.4th 125 (1992) (when to impose costs on a party)
- Stanton v. Pratt, 18 Cal.2d 599 (1941) (apportionment of receivership costs)
- Baldwin v. Baldwin, 82 Cal.App.2d 851 (1947) (broad discretion in allocating receivership costs)
- Melikian v. Aquila, Ltd., 63 Cal.App.4th 1364 (1998) (criteria for determining who pays fees)
- People v. Riverside University, 35 Cal.App.3d 572 (1973) (context of receivership expenses and public policy)
- Venza v. Venza, 101 Cal.App.2d 678 (1951) (receiver compensation authority and lien concepts)
- Andrade v. Andrade, 216 Cal.108 (1932) (receiver costs payable from the property)
- McCarthy v. Poulsen, 173 Cal.App.3d 1212 (1985) (economic principles in allocating costs)