CARSON, Calif., May 24, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A local realtor has filed a lawsuit against the City of Carson, alleging that the City engaged in a systematic effort to generate fees when it passed an ordinance requiring previously occupied residences be inspected by the City for a “Residential Property Report” (RPR) before they can be sold.
According to the 13-page complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court filed by attorney James Rainboldt, “Literature prepared and distributed by the City of Carson Development Services acknowledges that inspections conducted in conjunction with the preparation of a residential property report shall be limited to the exterior areas of the subject property. The City prepared and distributed a document which further emphasizes that the inspection should be limited in scope. It is not intended to evaluate the condition of any particular building element . . . [The] Buyer should exercise caution in purchasing property and it is highly recommended that a private inspector be hired to conduct a detailed report.”
“Enforcement of a mandatory property inspection by city staff is illegal, but enforcement that specifically is aimed at fattening the city coffers is just wrong,” said Kenneth Letourneau, the plaintiff and licensed real estate agent who has purchased and sold residential real estate in Carson. “For several years, I have repeatedly advised the City of Carson that the RPR ordinance is invalid and violates the law. In addition, various members of the public and organizations have consistently advocated and attempted to convince the City to cease enforcement of the unlawful inspection requirement,” added Letourneau.
As detailed in the complaint, “the ordinance requires that corrective measures be completed by the seller. It actually precludes buyers, in most cases, from assuming responsibility for performing the corrective measures required by the RPR. In fact, the Building and Planning inspectors regularly and routinely, without probable cause to do so, inspect the interior of the habitable portion of the ‘subject properties,’ always finding cause to generate further fees on behalf of City and require further inspections by Building and Planning.”
The ordinance exempts property from further inspection if an RPR has been issued within the previous six months. However, within this six-month exemption period, Mr. Letourneau attempted to sell the residential property located in Carson and was required to undergo a second inspection—contrary to the express provision of the ordinance.
According to the complaint, “City Building and Planning inspectors—in keeping with their established custom and practice and for the purpose of generating additional fees—conducted this second unlawful inspection, which was explicitly contrary to the provisions of the ordinance, and was conducted without probable cause to do so. This second inspection revealed yet additional corrective actions, requiring yet a third unlawful inspection, thus delaying the closing of the transaction and requiring the expenditure of additional sums of money by plaintiff. Although the incident recited here deals with a single specific application of the ordinance, it is typical of the manner in which the ordinance is enforced.”
The complaint alleges “the ordinance provides for the issuance of a Residential Property Release (RPR) upon correction of all items noted on inspection and any re-inspections performed by Building and Planning. Pending issuance of the RPR Release, the City records a 'Notice' against title on all properties within Carson. This 'Notice' is a cloud on title or lien, and prevents the issuance of title insurance without an RPR Release. Although called a 'Notice,' it is in fact a lien against the title. This lien provides Carson Building and Planning inspectors leverage with which to coerce the sellers of residential properties to submit to inspections of their homes without justification, contrary to the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and even contrary to the express provisions of the ordinance.”
“Remarkably, if a buyer wants to make the repairs as required by the RPR, the Ordinance requires that they secure a minimum of three bids from licensed contractors and that permits be secured,” said Letourneau.
According to the complaint, “the custom and practice of requiring inspections without probable cause, the custom and practice of requiring bids from multiple licensed contractors possessing a valid business license for Carson, the requirement that all corrective work be performed by licensed contractors with a valid business license for Carson, the requirement that permits be secured for even elementary repairs, and the fees generated by repeated inspections present significant and unjustified time and financial burdens on property owners who wish to sell their residential property.”
The lawsuit also alleges that “Carson has further burdened realtors and agents, as well as all individuals offering their homes for sale within the City of Carson, by imposing unreasonable restrictions on times that open houses can be held and by placing unreasonable restrictions on placement of signage advertising open houses. The restrictions for open houses provide that they are permissible only on Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.”
“The City of Carson continues to enforce its illegal Residential Property Release ordinance and wrongfully deny the public access houses for sale,” added Letourneau. “The City has ignored the community, requests from the real estate industry, and its obligations under the law because they are only interested in generating revenue. After attempting to get the City to see the error of their ways, the only recourse left was to bring this lawsuit,” concluded Letourneau.