Friday, October 9, 2026

Page 3

Seller of Chandler Estate Sues Over $200,000 Deposit

By a MetNews Staff Writer

Depicted is the Chandler Estate at Lorraine Boulevard and Fifth Street just outside Hancock Park in the City of Los Angeles. The seller sued Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California claiming emotional distress over the retention by the buyers of a $200,000 deposit into escrow to assure that the residence was in the same condition when turned over as it was when the agreement was made to purchase the property for $12 million.

A seller of the Windsor Square mansion once occupied by the Chandler family, which owned the Los Angeles Times, is suing the buyers of the property for withholding $200,000 deposited in escrow, saying that denial of the money is causing him extreme emotional distress.

The 1913 Beaux Arts residence at 455 Lorraine Boulevard is known as the “Dorothy Chandler Estate” though it was dubbed by the Chandlers “Los Tiempos,” Spanish for “The Times,” and was widely known as the “Western White House” in light of the succession of U.S. presidents—Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon—who stayed there. Purchased in 1950 by Times publisher Norman Chandler and his wife, Dorothy Buffum Chandler, it has been designated a Los Angeles City cultural historic monument.

Bought in 2014 for $9.5 million by Nigerian businessman Robert J. Oshodin Sr. and his wife, it was recently sold for $12 million by Oshodin and his family trust to the Rose Rodriguez Trust and others.

A complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Oshodin and the trust alleges that the parties entered in a contract for the purchase of the home last December; the buyers later agreed that the Oshodins could remain on the premises, rent-free, for 29 days following the close of escrow but with $200,000 deposited in escrow to be refunded if the property had been maintained in its present condition. Escrow closed on April 10; the Oshodins moved out on April 24; but, the pleading says, the deposit was not returned.

Allegations of Complaint

It sets forth (with paragraph numbering omitted):

“At the time that Plaintiff vacated the property, it was in substantially the same condition that it was in at the time that Defendants accepted it for the close of escrow (finalizing the sale).

“Incident to Plaintiffs vacation of the premises, power and water subscriptions were required to be undertaken in the names of the Defendants.

“On or about May 5, by text message to the sales agent, Defendants… asked if Plaintiff would withhold cancelling the utilities (internet) account if he hadn’t already, so that Defendants could place it into their names without interrupting the security alarm system. This message was forwarded to Plaintiff on May 5.

“Defendants’ May 5 request was not covered by any contractual obligation undertaken by Plaintiff and it was too late for Plaintiff to accommodate it.

“Plaintiff having vacated the premises on April 24, 2026. Defendants’ May 5 message requesting that Plaintiff extend his utilities accounts for power, internet and water, were too late to be accommodated.”

Causes of Action

The complaint—which defines “Plaintiff” as including Oshodin and the trust—was signed by Westchester attorney Alvin L. Pittman. It sets forth causes of action for breach of contract, “Count One”, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, “Count Two”.

Although there is no cause of action on behalf of Oshodin, alone, for infliction of emotional distress, the complaint says, in connection with Count Two:

“It was always reasonable that depriving Plaintiff of access to his $200,000 would cause Plaintiff severe mental and emotional distress.

“Defendants’ actions depriving Plaintiff of access to his $200,000 was a direct and proximate cause of severe mental and emotional distress to Plaintiff.”

Aside from seeking the $200,000, it asks for “noneconomic damages for the foreseeable severe and enduring mental and emotional distress to Plaintiff” and punitive damages.

Defendants, in addition to the Rose Rodriguez Trust, are Michael Rose, individually and as trustee, and Ruben Rodriguez. The escrow company was not named as a defendant.

The case is Oshodin v. Rose Rodriguez Trust, 26STCV31607.