Hello.
I'd like to provide some factual dispensation for this discussion and to add detail to clear up any confusion.
1. After the unlawful detainer hearing I presented the landlord's secretary with the exact amount due and owed for back rent--the amount sued for. It was refused. Under the California Commercial Code and Uniform Commercial Code, refusal of payment tendered is discharge of the debt, to the extent of the amount tendered. Under the law, the debt was paid, and they should have released my stuff to me, but they did not. By operation of law, after the eviction and unlawful detainer they were required to allow me to retrieve my property, but they refused.
2. No proper notice was ever given by the landlords until they followed my prescriptive writings and sent me a notice of sale weeks after the initial lockout, despite the fact that I had made my demands numerous and well known that I was ready and waiting to retrieve my property and remove it to another already (for two months) rented warehouse.
3. When I had the wherewithall to remove my property the landlords would not let me have it. I was unaware of the lockout until 11 days after because no notice was sent, as required by California statute. They locked me out for over 2 months, and when I finally got access I was more broke than before (having materially lost out on numerous money making deals because the landlords would not let me have access to my revenue generating property), and the rainy season had started with a fury the same week I began the move, whereas for 2 months it was nice and dry. Their own negligence and recalcitrance contributed heavily to the delay in removing my property, both materially and indirectly.
4. Once I regained possession, the landlords were paid all the way up until I had to break to take care of business, raise some money, and deal with legal issues regarding my foreclosure. The deal I made with the landlord before I broke was to return with money to pay for the days during the break forward through the expected end date of the 20th. He got his attorney involved again and made unreasonable demands to allow me to resume moving, reneging on our previous agreement and refusing to negotiate in good faith. I now believe it was his intent to steal my property.
5. This matter took time away from my fight against the bank that is trying to unlawfully foreclose on my house. Due in part to this distraction and my attempts to help a friend prevent eviction from his unlawfully foreclosed house, I was unable to stop the sale of mine in October, further exacerbating my issues and now causing me to be torn between two major legal battles in two separate counties. I hope no one ever lands themselves in a similar situation. I will have extreme sympathy for you.
6. Yes, I was perhaps too proud to ask for help when I could. But truth be told, I didn't expect the landlords to be such assholes. I was always amicable with them and was bringing them money on a schedule I said I could, which was on a reasonable timeline. They just became impatient and irate, unreasonably in my opinion. They could have readily marketed the building while I was moving out but chose not to, instead playing some sort of game where they wanted me out but then wanted me to stay if I entered into a new lease, which I was unwilling to do since I had already found a cheaper warehouse. Yes, I could have raised money faster before I defaulted, but there was a lot more going on behind the scenes than I've discussed. Yes, I made mistakes, but that doesn't mean a man should have his possessions callously stolen from him.
7. Yes, I consider this property stolen, as it is mine and has been unlawfully taken from me. I realize you may have a differing personal opinion. However, it's the legal opinion that matters, and I believe I have the advantage there. We'll eventually find out.
8. What's wrong with defending one's own interests in a legal venue when one is fully capable and competent to do so? I see this unsettling disparagement of those who defend themselves and it irks me, because the legal description of one who hires an attorney is a mental incompetent (non compos mentis). There are both legal and practical reasons why I would not hire an attorney. The one who was recommended for me would have likely tried to use his local connections to cut some silly deal with the judge on my behalf, if I was lucky. I didn't want to waste $300 to find out if he could even help me. That's 5 tanks of gas. I failed in my hearings because of inexperience, unfamiliarity with the rules, and the fact that the landlords had an insider they brought to every hearing. All of which should have been moot. Under well settled law I should have been afforded every opportunity to press my claim. Instead I was met with a hostile judge at both TRO hearings. I didn't realize until later that the deck was stacked against me, after it was suggested by a number of people, and after I did some investigation.
With the exception of the landlord's insider and the collusion of the judge and their attorney, this is all discussed in my affidavit and letters but it's understandable that details get lost due to the size of the material.
I've spent more time on this than I wanted. And there's a lot more to this story that may eventually come out, years from now, if anyone cares to remember. By then I'll know if the "sacrifice" will have been worth it.
-Sellam
