Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Page 7
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
Judge Willett’s Lawsuit Results in $200,000 Cost to City of Torrance
By ROGER M. GRACE
Emblazoned across the top of the front page of the Torrance Daily Breeze on May 29 was the headline, “Judge’s lawsuit sets Torrance back $200,000.” The story tells of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William G. Willett’s action against the City of Torrance to compel it to grant him an encroachment permit authorizing a security wall and a gate on public property eight feet in front of his residence’s property line...a wall and gate which he had gone ahead and constructed without a permit.
The account by Breeze staff writer Nick Green tells of Willett’s recent acquiescence in city demands that he move the structures onto his own property...an acquiescence that came only after the city had incurred huge legal expenses in fighting off the action by Willett and his wife.
The article says that the case was “on the verge of settlement,” noting that Willett, “who sits in the Redondo Beach courthouse, filed an application with the city Thursday [May 24] for a new wall and gate” to be located on his own property.
Green quotes Torrance City Attorney John Fellows III as saying:
“That’s what we asked him to do in the beginning and then, after $200,000 in litigation (fees), that’s where we ended up.”
The story points out that “[w]hile the parties have agreed to the terms of the settlement, documents have yet to be signed.”
Who’s to blame for the $200,000 cost? Largely, Willett. As I opined yesterday, the writ petition he filed in December, 2005, in the Los Angeles Superior Court was utterly frivolous. Going back farther…
It was in 1980, when Willett was appointed to the South Bay Municipal Court, that he and his wife had the brick wall constructed in response to a security advisory from the Marshal’s Office. They had no construction permit (which they needed because the structure exceeded—by 1 foot—a height of 3 feet). Well, okay, these things happen. It’s assumed that a contractor knows what work requires a permit, and the legal requirement could well be innocently overlooked by the property owners. It is true that Willett had been in the Torrance City Attorney’s Office from 1974 until his appointment, and presumably learned something about city permits...but, heck, he’s still entitled to the benefit of a doubt.
As to the assertion by his lawyers that he was not cognizant of the structure being placed on city property…well, that’s a bit harder to accept. His house is on a street without a sidewalk. In 1980, there was a 14-foot strip straddling the front of his property. Any intelligent layperson, let alone a municipal lawyer turned judge, should have appreciated that the strip was a city right-of-way, on which a sidewalk might someday be installed. Nonetheless, Willett and his wife had a wall constructed 8 feet into the strip, thus appropriating potential sidewalk space to their own use.
And in 2003, a massive security gate was added by them on the purloined property. A neighbor tattled to the city; the city told the Willetts they were using city property and needed an encroachment permit; they were granted one, with conditions attached; the neighbor appealed to the City Council; that body, on Sept. 27, 2005, granted the appeal and denied the permit.
Good faith on the part of Willett in appropriating the space in 1980, and further constructing on it in 2003, is possible…but doubtful. Indeed, the Willetts’ petition for a writ of mandate, challenging the council’s action, protested that other property owners in the area had done the same thing as they. That is, they had had built on the city’s strip, without a permit, and later obtained a permit at the agency level, in essence ratifying what they had done. The intent of this assertion was to portray the Willetts as the subject of discrimination. There was, however, a failure in that regard; the petition did not allege that any such ratifications occurred at the City Council level in the context of an appeal from the granting of an encroachment permit. What the assertion in the petition does suggest is that the Willetts noticed that others were unimpeded in building on city property, so they did the same, thinking that they, too, could get by with it. Chances are, however, that none of the scofflaw neighbors is subservient to a canon, as Willett is, providing that “A judge shall respect and comply with the law....”
The person appealing the permit which was initially granted to the Willetts was Jim Harrigan, who attributed to the Willett this thinking, in putting up the gate: “What are they going to do to us? Make us take it down?”
Even if it is assumed that Willett was goofy enough not to realize that the strip in front of his house where no sidewalk existed was a city right-of-way, where he could not build without permission, he certainly became aware of that in December, 2003, when the city notified him that he was trespassing.
According to his writ petition, “On June 30, 2005, the Encroachment Review Committee made its decision to approve Petitioners’ application with certain restrictions.” The provisos included lowering the height of the gate and hedges. Rather than saying, “Thank you very much” for being given free use of city space, and making the alterations, Willett quibbled about the conditions that were imposed.
At the Sept. 27, 2005 City Council hearing, the director of Torrance’s Community Development Department announced:
“The owners...wanted me to convey to your honorable body that they are willing to compromise and accept the review committee’s recommendation with the exception of the height of the gate and the hedges.”
What? The Willetts weren’t appealing the June 30 action; Harrigan was. This would be like a successful plaintiff in an action for damages telling the Court of Appeal, though not cross-appealing on the issue of damages: “I’ll accept an affirmance of the judgment in my favor on condition you increase the award.”
Willett had asked the city for a favor: letting him and his wife continue to use city property for private purposes. The City Council had no duty to grant the request, and didn’t. Willett had no encroachment permit, and knew that his fence and gate were on city property, impermissibly. Yet, defiantly, he did not remove them.
He brought an action in Los Angeles Superior Court, with a change of venue to Orange County being granted on stipulation of the parties. As discussed here yesterday, a basis for contesting the City Council’s exercise of its prerogative to say “no” was that the council session at which the permit was considered, like all council sessions, was televised, and security concerns supposedly precluded Willett from appearing on TV given that his address was mentioned. Willett wanted the hearing on Harrigan’s appeal blacked out. There were, obviously, less drastic means of avoiding a threat to the Willetts’ security while permitting their side to be told, such as testimony by the judge’s wife—who would hardly be recognized by the bad guys Willett had sentenced—or by an attorney, or by declaration, or testimony by Willett with the camera behind him.
The writ petition was clearly without merit.
The action in administrative mandamus was joined with a cause of action for damages.
“California Government Code § 6254.21 provides ‘(a) No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.... (c) For purposes of this section, ‘elected or appointed official’ includes...(3) Judges and court commissioners.”
The agenda and minutes, available on the Torrance website, naturally mentioned the address of the property to which the permit related. However, the name of the official who lived there was not mentioned.
Also, a streaming video of the Sept. 27, 2005, City Council session was, and is, available on the website. The address of the property appeared on the screen while the item was being discussed, just as the address of any other property is displayed during proceedings relating to it. And the address was alluded to during the hearing. Although Harrigan did blurt out that the property owner was a judge, Willett’s name was not mentioned.
It is difficult to imagine that the statute was violated where the address was associated merely with a permit application, and not tied to a particular “elected or appointed official.”
Since the statute appears facially inapplicable, there would be no need to obtain the Willetts’ written assent. However, I find it interesting that the Willetts did, apparently expressly assent to the address being mentioned, although it might not have been in writing. The motion for issuance of a writ says that “the Willetts requested that they remain anonymous and only be referred to as ‘the owners of [address specified].’ ”
The complaint goes on to say:
“As a result of Respondents failure to comply with Government Code § 6254.21, Petitioners have incurred substantial amount of out-of-pocket costs to protect themselves and their family from potential threat to their safety. In addition, Petitioners and their home have been subject to viewing by caravans of spectators which has caused them to suffer fear, anxiety and other mental and emotional distress.”
I somehow doubt the assertion in the complaint, which Willett verified, that there were “caravans of spectators.” Did touring buses leave from the Queen Mary on the hour to take “spectators” to the Willetts’ house to see their fence and gate?
Anyway, Orange Superior Court Judge Geoffrey T. Glass granted judgment on the pleadings to the city on that cause of action, ruling that the Willetts could not obtain damages, but leave to amend was granted so the plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief.
The matter was rendered moot when the city doctored the files on the Internet, removing the full address of the property from the agendas and minutes, leaving only the street name, cut the portions of the video where the address was recited aloud, and modified the caption on the screen to omit the address. You can see the caption, as it now appears, in this frame with Ted Semaan, director of the Community Development Department, addressing members of the council:
Given that Harrigan did mention during the council session that a judge was an owner of the property, and in light of the Daily Breeze publishing a photo of the fence and gate with part of the house visible, the city’s action in making the alterations to its website might be seen as the “nice” thing to do. That doesn’t mean that it could have been legally compelled.
William H. Ihrke of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, outside counsel for the city, says the city was simply being “accommodating” to the Willetts.
While primary blame must be ascribed to Willett for the city incurring legal expenses, inasmuch as his harebrained action necessitated the defense, the reasonableness of $200,000 being raked up in fees might certainly be questioned.
Fellows tells me that the city has been billed $167,500 so far, and he anticipates further bills. If the case is settled, as expected, he says, the total should not exceed $200,000 by much.
On April 10, the City Council authorized an additional $100,000 expenditure on the defense, having allotted $99,000 a year before. Rutan & Tucker’s Costa Mesa office bills the city at $170 to $230.
Assuming all of the time that is billed in the Willett case is at the $230 level, and the total comes to $200,000, that means that 870 hours will have been expended by the law firm. How can that be?
“This was a fairly contentious case,” Ihrke says. It was attended to with thoroughness because the message was given by the other side that it would fight “tooth and nail” to the end, he adds.
“Substantial time,” Ihrke notes, had to be devoted, for example, to researching the legal history of Government Code §6254.21 in order to demonstrate its inapplicability.
On the other hand, Victor J. Otten of the Long Beach firm of Trutanich • Michel, which represents the Willetts, scoffs that his firm (which got into the litigation eight months after it started but has done the lion’s share of the work) is charging its clients “substantially less” than $200,000. He also remarks that “the City Attorney’s Office has a bunch of lawyers” who could have handled the case.
Otten charges that the city could have settled the case a year ago on the same terms as those recently agreed to by counsel for both sides. Basically, the Willetts will remove the structures they placed on city property and, with the city facilitating the processing of the permits, place them on their own property.
Ihrke says the effectuation of the settlement is not a certainty because issuance of permits must be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council and, he comments, “I can’t speak for what the commission or the council will decide.”
Fellows is slated to discuss the case with the City Council in closed session tonight, and a status conference before Glass is scheduled for next Monday.
Copyright 2007, Metropolitan News Company