▲
THE
I SION VCENTER
Limbo Land
A lingering court case holds tenants hostage to the whims of their slumlord
▲
DR. PAUL DOMANCHUK OPTOMETRIST
607 SUMMER ST. PHOTO BY HEIDI WALTERS.
Custome r Fa Firecrac vorite: ker Beer & Sake on 18th St., between G & H, Northtown Arcata 826-1988
Providing Eye Care & Eye Wear for over 50 years.
616 H STREET • EUREKA
443-1619
By Heidi Walters
heidiwalters@northcoastjournal.com
I
t’s been 10½ months since Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen deemed the condition of six rental properties owned by Floyd and Betty Squires so bad they constituted “a substantial endangerment” to residents and the public, requiring immediate takeover by a court-appointed receiver. The receiver, Mark S. Adams, president of California Receivership Group LLP, based in Los Angeles, was appointed a month later, on Oct. 24. His job? To seize the six properties, inspect them and begin managing and rehabilitating them — collecting rents and hiring crews to fix the multitude of health and safety building code violations. (The receiver would use the rents to pay for the work, as well as liens put on the properties, as needed, which the Squireses would have to pay off.) But none of that happened. Shortly after the judge’s order, the Squireses appealed the ruling and posted a $50,000 bond to stop the judge’s order — effectively suspending the receivership, and Adams’ inspections, and leaving the properties in the Squireses’ hands until the case is resolved. (The Squireses, mean-
while, sued Adams, alleging he trespassed and violated tenants’ privacy in his initial inspections. That case is active.) Adams said in his 10 years as a receiver, he has never seen a case like this. “I’ve handled a total of 64 cases, up and down the state, ranging from a small duplex to a Grapes of Wrath kind of migrant camp of 4,000 in the Coachella Valley,” Adams said. “I’ve had three other cases in Eureka … but Floyd Squires is by far the most vexatious and harassing slumlord I’ve had to deal with by far. And the really landmark aspect of the Squires case is that a city had the resolve to take on a 26-property slumlord in one case; as far as I know, that’s not happened before or since anywhere else in California. For the city to perceive it as a systemic problem and to go after all the properties of an owner as opposed to just this property or that property — it’s extraordinary.” The six properties are among 26 named in the city of Eureka’s lawsuit against the Squireses in January 2011, alleging “ongoing and pervasive” violations. With the exception of a vacant parcel and the Squireses’ personal residence, the 26 properties constitute the couple’s entire holdings within the city limits. The status of all 26 northcoastjournal.com • North Coast Journal • Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012
7