the property framing and walls, replaced windows, and performed work to prevent further water damage. He inspected the property after the filing of the motion and city’s disputed many of the city the inspectors’ findings, primarily their concerns about structural soundness. Although he found three of the rooms to be property’s uninhabitable, he concluded the remaining rooms were and “clean, neat appear sanitary.” The property manager addressed the contentions point-by-point, denying the city’s presence of exposed electrical wiring, leaking plumbing, water damage, a leaky roof, and unsanitary conditions in the rooms, as well as other conditions. Reddy’s declaration detailed his extensive efforts to bring the property into compliance with the requirements of the judgment. In reply, the city submitted supplemental declarations by the inspector and code enforcement officer. Both had inspected the property after the filing of Reddy’s opposition papers and found that the code violations they had originally observed had not been cured. They concluded Reddy little or nothing to comply and anything he “has done has historically done has been unpermitted and the hearing substandard.” Shortly before on the motion, both parties filed a series of evidentiary objections to various statements in their opponents’ declarations. At the outset of the hearing, the trial court noted the evidentiary objections parties’ and held that objections go to the weight to be given to the evidence, not “generally those to its and considered each of the the admissibility, so I’ve read pleadings filed.” During hearing, counsel requested, for the first evidentiary hearing on Reddy’s time, “having an this. It would probably take about a day of the The court did not expressly court’s time.” rule on the request. attorney then guided the court through a painstaking Reddy’s examination of response to the various violations claimed by the city, arguing Reddy’s that the items included in the judgment had been addressed. Nonetheless, the court concluded that Reddy had not complied with the judgment and found that there was no feasible alternative to the appointment of a receiver to oversee compliance. In a written order filed the same day, the court made detailed findings and appointed a receiver,
the property framing and walls, replaced windows, and performed work to prevent further water damage. He inspected the property after the filing of the city’s motion and disputed many of the city inspectors’ findings, primarily their concerns about the property’s structural soundness. Although he found three of the rooms to be uninhabitable, he concluded the remaining rooms were “clean, neat and appear sanitary.” The property manager addressed the city’s contentions point-by-point, denying the presence of exposed electrical wiring, leaking plumbing, water damage, a leaky roof, and unsanitary conditions in the rooms, as well as other conditions. Reddy’s declaration detailed his extensive efforts to bring the property into compliance with the requirements of the judgment. In reply, the city submitted supplemental declarations by the inspector and code enforcement officer. Both had inspected the property after the filing of Reddy’s opposition papers and found that the code violations they had originally observed had not been cured. They concluded Reddy “has done little or nothing to comply and anything he has historically done has been unpermitted and substandard.” Shortly before the hearing on the motion, both parties filed a series of evidentiary objections to various statements in their opponents’ declarations. At the outset of the hearing, the trial court noted the parties’ evidentiary objections and held that “generally those objections go to the weight to be given to the evidence, not to its admissibility, so I’ve read and considered each of the pleadings filed.” During the hearing, Reddy’s counsel requested, for the first time, “having an evidentiary hearing on this. It would probably take about a day of the court’s time.” The court did not expressly rule on the request. Reddy’s attorney then guided the court through a painstaking examination of Reddy’s response to the various violations claimed by the city, arguing that the items included in the judgment had been addressed. Nonetheless, the court concluded that Reddy had not complied with the judgment and found that there was no feasible alternative to the appointment of a receiver to oversee compliance. In a written order filed the same day, the court made detailed findings and appointed a receiver,