A longtime Santa Monica resident living in a commercial property will have to vacate the space in February after losing his eviction hearing this week. In a Thursday ruling in the Santa Monica Courthouse by Judge Lawrence Cho, plaintiff OPB Buildings, represented by property owner Scott Bentz, was awarded possession of 3301 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite #208 in a case against defendant Scott Brutzman.
The case over the commercial property was initially filed on September 26, 2023, after Brutzman was unable to cooperate with a 30-day notice to quit served by the plaintiff. The court’s ruling states that Brutzman will have until February 18 to vacate the premises.
Brutzman had been fighting to stay in his suite, a situation complicated by the building’s status as a commercial property, as well as his own health challenges and a lack of available financial and legal resources. He initially agreed to a month-to-month lease at the property in order to run his insurance business, and after the business faltered due in part to his health condition, he remained at the property to use as a living space. The case was initially slated for jury trial until a conference between parties waved the jury, allowing the case to be heard by Cho.
During Brutzman’s testimony, he noted that Bentz had knowledge of his living situation at the property since around 2012. When questioned by the lawyer representing the plaintiff, Jonathan T. Dawson, Esq., Bentz clarified that he explicitly told Brutzman he could not live at the property, and noted that Brutzman had told the property owner that he was seeking alternate housing. When Brutzman was asked for evidence by Judge Cho as to Bentz’s knowledge of the living situation, Brutzman could not provide said evidence, but did claim that Bentz had seen his living quarters and Bentz did tell him in the past to rearrange his quarters in order to be compliant with local fire code.
Dawson’s argument centered on not necessarily the fact that Brutzman was using the commercial property as a private living space, but more so that a 30-day notice to quit is all the property owner needs to provide as a commercial operator. Dawson noted that an initial 30-day notice to quit served in May 2023 contained a defect, and that a subsequent notice was served to Suite #208 in August 2023.
After testimony by both sides of the case, as well as the cross-examination of Brutzman by Dawson and a short examination of Bentz by Dawson, Judge Cho stated that the court must abide by unlawful detainer laws, and that the plaintiff had surpassed burden of proof by providing the 30-day notice to quit.
Cho did note that the court was “not unsympathetic” to Brutzman’s health situation, and that it was “understandable” why he was living at the property. Brutzman’s health challenges included two bouts with cancer (prostate and Leukemia), as well as the contraction of Graft vs Host Disease (GvHD) as a result of bone marrow donations necessary to suppress his last bout with cancer. GvHD is a condition that ravages the host body and has left Brutzman with vastly reduced vision and severely compromised mobility. Brutzman noted that due to poor eyesight, he could not read off documents provided to him by health professionals discussing his condition, documents that were admitted into evidence by Cho despite relevance objections from Dawson.
The judge also stated that whether Bentz knew of Brutzman’s living status or not was irrelevant to the case, with Cho adding that he “could understand” if Bentz was sympathetic and allowed Brutzman’s residency, but that arrangement was not legal in turning the lease into a residential tenancy.
“[The] court can’t just have OPB Buildings allow [Brutzman] to stay there and reside there on commercial premises,” Cho said.
Cho asked how long Brutzman would need to find alternative housing, with Brutzman replying he would need six months. The judge replied by stating he could not give Brutzman that much of a timeframe, asking if six weeks would be enough time, in which Brtuzman replied in the negative. After conferral between Dawson and Bentz, Dawson stated that they did not foresee the lockout process occurring within a month, leading to Cho’s motion to pause a vacate of the premises until February 18. Brutzman also asked the judge if he could appeal the case, in which Cho said that was within his rights to do.
During testimony, Brutzman said he had been shown three alternative housing sites within the past 18 months, but that none were of reasonable accommodation to his health conditions. He did note that he had recently been put into contact on a new housing option by a friend in the real estate industry, a housing unit within Santa Monica that would qualify for Section 8 Housing. The unit contains two bedrooms, which would allow for space for Brutzman’s two alternating caretakers.
The plaintiff waived holdover damages and other legal costs related to the case, accepting the judgment awarding OPB Buildings possession of the premises.
thomas@smdp.com
