Gustely

Cnty. of Sonoma v. Gustely

Good Law
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 792·36 Cal. App. 5th 704
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 2019A153423California4,029 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kline, J.

*706 Respondent Mark Gustely failed to comply with an administrative order finding various violations of county codes on his property and ordering him to abate the violations and pay abatement costs and civil penalties. When the County of Sonoma (County) filed an action in the superior court to enforce the codes, enjoin further violations and recover penalties, costs and attorney fees, respondent did not file a responsive pleading and the court entered a default judgment in favor of the County. The judgment, however, ordered penalties significantly lower than the amount ordered by the administrative hearing officer. The sole issue on appeal is the propriety of this reduced penalty assessment. As we will explain, this provision of the court's order, which alters a final administrative *794 order, was entirely unexplained and provides respondent with a windfall he did not request, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we will reverse the court's order imposing civil penalties at the rate of $20 per day, direct the court to modify its judgment to require payment of such penalties at the rate of $45 per day, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

January 13, 2017, 1 an engineer…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.