Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
With a $700,000 check, the city of San Francisco and a local homeowner last week put to rest a code enforcement dispute that had dragged on for 17 years. In a settlement reached days before a scheduled oral argument at the First District Court of Appeal, both sides agreed to abandon their ongoing battle over a $1.6 million default judgment the city won in 2000. Defendant Josef Pohl agreed to pay San Francisco $700,000 � the city got the check Thursday � though the settlement specified that he was admitting no fault or liability. The city claimed that Pohl had repeatedly renovated his home without getting the required permits to create a second unit within the building and to put on a 25-foot-by-25-foot addition. And court documents indicate that the fight over Pohl’s building had sometimes turned ugly. In a brief filed a couple of years ago, the city said that it once had police officers and a locksmith force their way in because Pohl wouldn’t let a building inspector enter. “All the while, [Pohl] was locked inside,” the city added. “I would say he was a little more reluctant to fix his violations than the landlords we sue,” said Deputy City Attorney Rose-Ellen Fairgrieve, who supervises the city attorney’s code enforcement team. “He could have fixed everything within a matter of months, really, if he had just set his mind to it.” By 2003, Pohl had fixed everything, Fairgrieve said, but both sides continued to argue about the default judgment until the recent settlement. By last week, lawyers for both sides seemed to be letting bygones be bygones. “There’s no disputing there was a long history that Mr. Pohl had with the city before I got involved,” said the defense attorney on the case, Joseph Bravo of San Francisco’s Bravo & Margulies. But Bravo also said the resolution had resulted from “a lot of good-faith negotiating.” “We think it’s a fair settlement,” Fairgrieve added. The default judgment had been so high because it was not contested soon enough, she said. The settlement was large enough to cover the roughly $130,000 the city spent on the drawn-out litigation. And the remainder of about $570,000 would rank alongside the biggest penalties she’s seen in her seven years on the code violations team, she said. And she doesn’t discount another plus � moving on. “We’re really happy to have the case behind us.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.