Glendale v Falls at Montrose

Not too long ago, on March 30, 07, Starpoint LLC (the parent corp for Falls at Montrose), bought the property on 2121 Valderas Dr. From what I understand, the community here was quite different at the time-the landlords were an elderly couple who had a super that constantly made sure everything was ok. The landlords also made sure to keep it a quiet, tranquil neighborhood who take the application process quite seriously.

Once the property was bought and formed Falls at Montrose LLC to manage the property. Immediately they began a campaign to remodel units which rubbed tenants the wrong way. According to stories and reports, they raised rent over several hundreds of dollars, pestered tenants in hopes of making them vacate, and other unwelcoming behavior. An anonymous poster on Apartmentratings.com summed it best:

I lived here loving my apartment for 6 years. I had wildlife out my back door and beautiful waterfall, stream, trees and flowers out the front, as well as lovely neighbors - UNTIL - March 30th when the lives of the tenants of 104 units were negatively impacted by StarPoint Property Management of Beverly Hills.

I had just completed treatment for a serious illness and was just trying to recover when on March 30th I found 2 notices on my door. The first welcomed me to the building and announced that they were the new owners. The second (which was illegal in Glendale) gave me 60 days to vacate or else be charged 3 times my rent and have a negative credit rating put on me.

I immediately went to the apartment noted as the "office" to ask for more time in light of my recent illness as I did not have the stamina to move. Of the 104 units, only 20 of us were given eviction notices. That's so they could collect rent from the other units while rehabbing. When I asked if I could be one of the people to stay on, I was told no. When I said I was undergoing cancer treatment and didn't have the stamina and asked what I should do, I was told to CALL A SOCIAL WORKER!

This is the bad faith that was shown to all of us from day one. Immediately they commenced repiping the building while folks were still living in the units. They deprived us of our parking spaces so the plumbers could have access (this is a cul de sac on a steep hill - street parking is just about non-existant), they chopped holes in our walls leaving fine white dust everywhere, they turned off our water, leaving folks without toilets! They are in peoples' apartments til 9 0 10 p.m. at night. They have turned off the waterfalls and drained the streams. Complaints fall on deaf ears. StarPoint is so arrogant they don't care. They are a billion dollar corporation who has a legal department and they feel they can escape any legal actions via loopholes in the law.

Glendale law requires that they give a reason for the vacancy notice and information about relocation money at the time of the notice. From then they have 15 days to give you the money. So far, in my case they are 5 weeks late. When they were notifified by the City Attorney's office that they had to pay relocation costs - they rescinded the evictions! Then 5 days later raised everyone's rent. In some cases as much as $500! In Glendale, there is no rent control so they can legally raise the rent every 60 days.

If you are crazy enough to move in, be prepared to be treated no better than we have.

A poster named zyxwe added her experience:

I have lived in this apartment building for over 3 years. Ever since Star Point took over we have had nothing but problems. They raised my rent $301.00 a month when I just had an increase less than 6 months ago. I had huge holes in my walls that were started and then left like that for 2 weeks. I have not had hot water in my kitchen for over a week and I have asked for it to be fixed 3 times. This used to be a nice building where I felt safe, but I no longer do. They were giving the piping people our keys and letting them enter our units alone with no supervision. I have an 8 year old daughter and now I don't feel comfortable. Who knows who has keys to my unit now. This management company shows no signs of compassion or understanding. They are out for money and I would not recommend to anyone to move into this building. They will not care how you feel or what you have to deal with as long as they have money in their pockets. I assure you it will be the biggest mistake you will make. They have taken all the water out of the waterfalls so now it doesn't have that nice peaceful atmosphere. They also have materials all over the place and the grounds are no longer being kept up. The manager does not live in the building so he cannot possibly be caring for the grounds like the old manager used to.

Some of the tenants banded together and lobbied the city to take action against the Falls by means of a criminal lawsuit.:

Superior Court Judge Stan Blumenfeld on Wednesday set June 13 as the date to begin the trial in the city’s criminal case against the owners and operators of a Montrose apartment complex for alleged violations of tenants’ rights.

The city brought the case against StarPoint Properties, LLC and Valderas Drive Properties, LLC, which own and run the apartment complex at 2121 Valderas Drive, for alleged violations of the city’s just cause for eviction ordinance. After conducting a five-month investigation last summer and fall, the city attorney’s office concluded that the companies violated the city’s just cause for eviction ordinance in multiple ways.

At some point, the city settled with Starpoint attorneys, with Starpoint assuming no guilt and maintaining a rather self-righteous position:

Yeretsian said that the effort to settle the lawsuit was not an admission of guilt by StarPoint but an effort to put the issue behind them.

“Our clients are very happy with this result,” she said. “It’s best any time you can get the case dismissed.”

Some tenants remained upset:

“StarPoint has offered to settle with people at an amount that is less than the [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] guidelines,” said former Valderas Drive resident Sharon DeFrank, who was not named in the criminal case after having received about $38,000 in relocation costs. “The city has the [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] guidelines, but is willing to let StarPoint pay people less. I hate to think they are working together, but it’s hard not to.”

...So they decided to file a civil suit:

The tenants had filed a lawsuit in Glendale Superior Court against StarPoint Properties LLC and Valderas Drive LLC for relocation costs after they said their apartments were left rundown while construction crews worked on the complex.

Commissioner Steven Monette mailed out his judgment to the tenants in which he ruled in favor of them and against StarPoint Properties and Valderas Drive LLC, citing that they were substantially impaired in using and enjoying their apartments during the reconstruction.

But he said that since the tenants weren’t evicted, their relocation fees had to be capped off under a Glendale Municipal Code.

While Starpoint isn't exactly in charge of Falls at Montrose (though who knows how politics work within Starpoint LLC's), you'd imagine they'd want to save face. Change the manager, be more apologetic after the lawsuits, or do something productive. But no, nothing has changed because the subsiding of construction. The same property manager, whose behavior and heavy-handed managing got the company into lawsuit, is still employed. The management still abuses its tenants, still subjects them to unhealthy living quarters, and humiliates them.

Three Stories Regarding Unliveble Conditions and Harassment

_{The following stories involve a single tenant who told me her story. I'm summarizing it here.}

Story One: Harassment

About half a year ago, the Manager came to apartment of tenant at about 9 PM and knocked very hard “scared the shit” out of the tenant. The tenant, a recently widowed mother, was afraid not knowing who was knocking so urgently to see what was the emergency. She went and opened the door only to be surprised by the Manager, half-naked in a bathrobe who immediately began screaming and shouting accusing the tenant of dropping her trash in front of the dumpster. In the midst of her accusations and rant she even yelled at her son. She forced the tenant and her son to go and clean it in the middle of the night.

The Manager made not point to clarify whose trash it was. In fact the trash, which consisted of a pregnancy test and Asian takeout, did not belong to neither the tenant nor her son. Nevertheless, they cleaned most of the mess.

Story Two: Sewage Flood and Unlivable Conditions

Roughly a year ago, issues with the pipes caused sewage to rise from the tenant's toilet and completely covered the bathroom and entered the master bedroom.

The tenant asked for a clean up crew to come and handle the clean up of the sewage. The Managers had cleaners come and clean up; unfortunately, the cleaning crew cleaned the carpet but not the bathroom. Moreover, in the process of starting to clean up the bathroom they removed some things that fell into the sewage in the bathroom.

The tenant complained that the job was left unfinished. After a dispute with the Manager, the cleaning team was sent back.

At this point, the carpet was still dirty and unsanitary. The tenant requested that the carpet be replaced, which was rebuffed by the Manager who said that that was the tenant’s responsibility. A year later, the carpet has yet to be replaced. A formal complaint has been registered with the City of Glendale.

Story Three: Hardwood Floor Issues and Unlivable Conditions

Over a year ago, the tenant's kitchen hardwood floor began to bubble and fringe. The tenant complained to the Management that it needed to be fixed. The Management didn’t even acknowledge the issue. Later the bubble burst, leaving splinters of hardwood exposed to the Tenant, her son, and her pets. Despite having tried to fix it herself, the tenant reports that she has tripped over it many times.

Up till this week, the issue has yet to even be acknowledged by the Management.

Harassing a Tenant, Trust Betrayed

After moving in, the tenant was interested in getting satellite tv, whom he had been informed by the Manager when he signed the contract would be ok if it could be mounted on the balcony.

The tenant decided to order satellite television service, the installation of which required a waiver signed by the management. He tried calling the apartment office for a week and eventually sending this email:

I tried calling the office (several times...over the course of several hours) and your cell phone and on one's picked up. I'm getting satellite TV installed tomorrow and I need you guys to sign a contact OK'ing it. Because I can't get a hold of you, I'm emailing you now in hopes of getting it. When you do, please give me a call at [number redacted]

Eventually he got a call back from the Manager telling the tenant that they could meet together at 9 AM the day the installer was coming to sign the waiver.

Not only was the Manager not available or responsive on their cell phone at 9 AM, but even after the installer came and left hours later. The tenant had been stood up.

Days later the tenant went into the management office to get an explanation for the irresponsible behavior. Rather than meeting the manager, he met an assistant manager who explained that the Manager was rather busy and was also responsible for other apartment houses (despite living at this one). While not being convinced, the tenant told the assistant manager to not pass his concerns along as he didn't want to pursue the issue.

Days later he received phone call at work from the Manager who was screaming something along the lines of:

You have no right to ask about what I was doing!

My job is none of your buisness!

You have no right to tell me how to do my job! I don't come to your work and tell you how to do your job-you can't come to my job and tell me what to do!

I'm supercool, I signed off on your car. I'm not taking packages or signing off on anything else for you again.

The tenant was utterly confused as he had forgotten about the matter. Not only was he just called and harassed at work but his trust was also broken when they had told the assistant manager to not forward their concern regarding the availability of along.

In an email response the tenant asked to meet about the situation which was never followed up on (along with maintance isses that had not been handled since the move in). The tenant did CC their attorney which quickly prompted a change in behavior in the Manager who, while not apologizing, resumed taking packages.

Two Stories Regarding Disrespect of Privacy and Admited Criminal Acts

Both of these stories are involve two tenants, Tenant A and Tenant B, who are both neighbors which had been on rather poor terms. It was after these following events that the two tenants got to be on amicable terms and shared the information herein. One of the tenants was unavailable so I wasn't able to corroborate the story with her.

That said, the tenant who told me these stories is asserts that they happened and that she was told the truth by her neighbor. As soon as the other tenant becomes available I'll try to check the veracity-until then I'm leaving this statement as a caveat.

Store One: Disrespect of Privacy

Tenant A had filled out an application for an apartment in San Diego that she was considering; in this application, the Management or Manager at the Falls at Montrose was listed as a reference for Tenant A. At some point the apartment management from San Diego must have called the Falls to check to verify the tenant's qualities and status. The Manager construed that Tenant A had intended on moving out.

In a conversation with Tenant B, the Manager mentioned that Tenant A would be moving to San Diego (or that she would be possibly be moving to San Diego) in the context of the dispute between both the Tenants. Tenant B had not known this as Tenant A had not told anyone at the Falls that she had applied to another apartment.

Later, Tenant B mentioned it to Tenant A who was incredibly surprised that her confidence and expectation of privacy was betrayed.

Story Two: Manager Claims to Have Vandalized Tenant A's car

In another conversation with Tenant B, the Manager made two claims:

1. That they had peed on Tenant A's car
2. That they had put something in the gas tank of Tenant A's car to ruin it

While it's unlikely that either of these happened (in fact, Tenant A says their vehicle's gas tank door can only be operated from within the car) and that the Manager was being serious, this in no way appropriate. Moreover, the Manager was aware of the dispute between the two tenants and a joke like this is in no way constructive in mediating the dispute. As much as the Manager can claim to have been joking or acting in the capacity of a friend, there's no way to ignore her role as the property manager and the responsibility she has of resolving tenant issues.

In short in these two stories, the Manager not only violated a tenant's expectation of privacy but tastelessly joked about vandilzing property.

A Story About Late Fees (Pt I?)

Here's a tenant's story about the late fee at the Falls of Montrose.

In short, the tenant gave a check from an account that didn't have enough money. The check bounced (according to the bank a few days after they had turned it in). They were informed by Management on the 15th that the check bounced and they were responsible for a late fee as well as a bounced check fee. The the late fee stated by Management was over the actual late fee. The tenant was suspicious and the Manager later said she would look it up.

After eventually stating the fee according to the contract, the tenant asked for how the late fee was calculated (according to California Civil Code, they can only charge about the amount they would lose for a late payment and they have to have calculated this). There is no response and the tenant refused to pay asking to speak to the Fall's attorneys.

The attorneys demand payment for the late fee (it's worth noting that it's "a little over $90"), threatening, "If you fail to comply with this demand, legal action, including but not limited to eviction and/or small claims court proceedings will be instituted against you. In proceeding against you, we shall seek, in addition to the unpaid late fee, court costs and attorney fees as allowed by law." The attorney then states they are open to questions "regarding the content of the letter" and can only be replied to via fax or snail mail.

The tenant attempted to reply via fax via the internet--but the attorney refused to even confirm this fax was received. An email copy was sent out anyway. In this letter the tenant asked a few questions regarding how the late fee was calculated which have yet to be aknowledged, let alone addressed.

In short, the Falls of Montrose would rather evict and sue a tenant than explain how the late fee was derived. How sinister is that?

Below is an abridged email conversation with the Management (management in quotes, bolded):

Hey!

Your rent check bounced. I need you to pay your rent, AUM, and late fee now in the form of a money order or cashier's check. When you get a chance, can you either call me at (818) 249-2904 or email me? I'll be in the office to speak with you until 6 p.m.! :O)

Respectfully,

[name redacted]

Oops, I gave you a check and forgot to put the funds in that account for rent.

What is the total? I'll get a cashiers check tomorrow.

You owe me $1,780.63.

Rent: $1,535

AUM: $42.32

Past Due (which you included in this check): $78.93

Late: $99.38

NSF: $25.00

Grand Total Above. :O)

Questions?

Respectfully,

[name redacted]

How exactly was the late fee tabulated? I'm sure it's in the contract, don't have my contract on me. I believe with California Tenant Law it's supposed to be a reasonable estimate of the loss incurred by my tardiness? (So, that'd be interest on the rent/day that'd be going to the mortgage of the property, or something not particularly onerous which I'd consider $100 to be. A quick calculation of the losses, assuming a very liberal 10% interest, is about $50.00. I am certain the rate is less than that.)

Additionally, was the NSF contractually agreed? I don't remember it, but it's quite possible I may have missed it.

At the very least, I will have the rent and utils (AUM) to you tomorrow afternoon in the form of a cashier check. I will include the NSF if it is a part of the contract and I'll include the late fee after reviewing the contract personally, applicable tenant law, and speaking to my attorney to make sure you have the legal right to request that amount.

Our lease conract, which, if you'd like, I can provide another copy of for you, states 6% of the monthly rate. The only way I can see it was off is the late fee was calculated off the ENTIRE amount you owed me. Let me look into it. I am not sure if I can hold you responsible for being late for the ENTIRE aount on the check or just your rent.

Yes, the NSF is also in your lease.

Let me know if you have any questions. :O)

As mentioned, I wil lfind out about the late fee and the correct amount. This is all done in my accounting department, so let me call them up and find out for you.

Tomorrow, just pay me the AUM for THIS MONTH of $42.32, NSF of $25.00, and your rent of $1,535.

I am waiting for a response as to how to go about the late fee. I am totally cool with you paying the 6% of the $1,535. Then, the past due balance of the $99 and change can be paid later. Your late fee should be $92.10. I'll see if we can make the accounting changes on our side.

I don't exactly understand what you mean there. But instead of speculation I'll wait until you hear back from accounting. But I expect an appropriate late fee to be 6% of the prorated rent (as of when you received word regarding the bad check after ), $35.65.

Ill talk to my attorney tomorrow. Let's just wait till then.

Late fee, as I know, is off the entire rent, not pro rate.

Ill get with you tomorrow and we can go from there. :)

Have a good rest of your evening!

It may help if I speak to him/her directly so that we are on the same page.

Feel free to give my cell phone number: [phone number redacted]. I will not be at work tomorrow but I will be out.

later

I just got back and have had some time to look through the contract.

I find the portion in 2. Rent which reads:
"The parties agree...to fix the actually damage."

to be factually incorrect and was seemingly written in bad faith to attempt to circumvent Civil Code 1671 Part D. To that extent, I have affixed approximate damages (approx $35) and emailed them to you. In fact, it was so easy to affix the damages I did it on my cell phone with the rate you gave (6%) in less than a minute. I believe from my interpretation of CC1671 that Starpoint has the burden of proof to show that it is impracticable to affix these damages.

Moreover an interpretation of Civil Code 3302 reaffirms my assertion which defines the extent liquidated damages.

I find my offer to be fair to Starpoint, which I am certain garnered marginal damages at the worst (and likely no monetary losses), from a client who accidentally sent a bounced check.

Again, your attorney is free to contact me tomorrow. I insist that he/she should contact me through email so I have a written account and that I can more easily discuss the matter with my attorney and other legal aid. That said, I intend to get a check paying for last months AUM (utilities) bill, rent, and NSF.

Atfer speaking with my attorney, I find that you are responsible to pay your pate fee of 6% of your rent, as stated in your lease agreement. This applies to EVERY resident without any exceptions.

If you would like to discuss this any further with my attorney, I need your attorney to speak to them directly as they only will only speak to your legal representation. If you would like to continue disputing these charges, feel free to send me the information of your attorney and I can have KTS get in contact with him/her directly.

Byt he way, you still have a balance due for your past due AUM bills. I've outlined the amounts in a prior email to you. Let me know if you would like me to break it down for you again.

Hope you're having a good Monday!

Respectfully,

[name redacted]

So what can we gather from this story:

• The Management flippantly overstated the late fee. Had the Tenant not have persisted, he would have been swindled
  
• As stated the Management would rather sue and evict a tenant for $100 than answer a question
• Management would rather pay for an attorney to sue and evict a tenant than to negotiate personally, accept the settlement, or waive the late fee (which many landlords may do for the first late payment)
  
• According to the Tenant, their lawyer was never contacted, as the Management claimed would happen--therefore it would appear unwilling to talk to the tenant lest they actually discuss the issue productively

While the Tenant is considering what to do and irrespective of whether or not either party is right-this behavior is essentially legal extortion. Threatening a tenant with potentially astronomical legal costs and eviction over the smallest of infractions is downright being a slumlord. Also, the tenant appears to have followed the guidelines in this link for following up about a late fee (pdf). You'd imagine the Management would listen to the California Tenants of Rights-but they rather just trample on it.

Welcome to the Falls at Montrose!

So you're deciding to move to the Falls at Montrose? Maybe you heard about it by word of mouth at the Blue Moon Bar a few blocks away? Perhaps it was one of the posts on MyNewPlace.com or ForRent.com? It's possible you caught a glimpse of one of the eyesore signs they put up around the neighborhood?

Well, let me help you make your decision: don't.

Over time, I'll be posting tenant testimonials and background on the City of Glendale lawsuit against the Falls, but let's start with some trivialities regarding their post on MyNewPlace:

"With community features such as a sparkling swimming pool"

How about we take a gander at a recent pool inspection record (I'll be making this its own post later) which is located here. What do they have to say?

"Pool at THE FALLS AT MONTROSE inspected: 13 violations"

Let's list a few of these:

• Filter needed cleaning
• Inadequate skimming
• pH not acceptable
  
• Not enough chlorine
• No automatic chlorinator
• Turbidity (i.e. cloudy water/not visually clean)
  
• No one officially listed as maintaining a pool

Eek! Guess it's not so sparkling! Needless to say, there's a few more.


What else does the ad have to say?

"lush, green landscaping, and an enchanting waterfall that flows through the entire community, you'll want your next home to be at The Falls at Montrose."

Lush? Well, it certain has been lush. So lush that they had to cut branches trees around the complex that were, according to rumor, in violation of fire code.

Green landscaping? Well if you come for your visit, you'll notice quite a few barren spots which is likely related to the Falls being a little too pet friendly. So pet friendly, the dogs let themselves go where ever they want (this'll make the subject of it's own post later):



In all fairness, it is difficult to enforce this and the Management has threatened to punish those that can't contain their pets' love--but this does not appear to have ever been enforced.

So this is a very humble beginning. You may be wondernig that these are fairly trivial issues and they are, all things considered. Once I formalize some tenant statements, I'll be putting those up which will account the following:

• The Manager joking with one tenant about peeing on and damaging another tenant's car while at work
• The Manager calling a tenant at work to harass him for asking an assistent why she missed an agreement on appointment.
  
• The Management failing to replace feces stained carpet for months

As well as some details on the City of Glendale lawsuit.