> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Owner ordered to refund rent - URL: https://www.smdp.com/owner-ordered-to-refund-rent/ - Published: 2004-04-10T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T04:12:30.000Z - Author: John Wood - Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Venice, #archive-import SM COURTHOUSE — A Santa Monica judge last week ordered a Venice property owner to refund two years of rent to a tenant who sued his landlord for letting him live in an apartment that didn’t meet building codes — even though the owner didn’t know the apartment was illegal and the renter fought to stay there. The ruling could have a ripple effect in Santa Monica, where officials estimate there are at least 700 to 1,000 bootlegged apartments. City Hall is currently in the process of bringing the units up to code by relaxing parking restrictions and setback requirements that make many of them illegal. In her decision, Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Lorna Parnell ordered landlord Dan Ramirez to pay tenant Juan Martinez $7,775 — or 24 months of rent — for renting him an apartment at 718 Vernon Ave. in Venice that didn’t meet Los Angeles zoning codes. “It is the court’s conclusion that... renting a unit which is illegal for occupancy under the zoning laws is an unlawful business practice, and thus a violation...,” according to Parnell’s ruling, which acknowledged Ramirez was slow-played by bureaucrats and given vague and conflicting information. Lawyers familiar with local housing laws said it’s unlikely Judge Parnell’s ruling would hold up under appeal, adding in Santa Monica, as in Los Angeles, the housing stock is a protected asset. “While I understand what she’s saying, it’s completely wrong, because what landlords are doing is preserving needed housing,” said prominent landlord attorney Rosario Perry, who estimated there are closer to 3,000 bootlegged units in Santa Monica. “Landlords cannot remove a bootlegged unit, number one. Number two, by doing that you’re just exacerbating the housing shortage. “It’s really a reverse of good business practices.” Perry noted that Judge Parnell’s ruling cannot be cited before another judge because only published decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set a legal precedent. Ramirez is unlikely to fight the decision, because he views it as an overall victory, his lawyer said. In the lawsuit, Martinez and fellow tenant Basilia Mejia were seeking $130,729 from Ramirez. He bought the building in May of 1999 from former owner Robert Wood. Mejia and Martinez claimed they were due nearly $26,000 in back rent, another $51,000 in damages for repeatedly being charged rent on the units and $54,000 for elder abuse against Mejia. Parnell awarded only the back rent to Martinez, noting that Mejia’s unit was not bootlegged. Wood was a co-defendant in the lawsuit but settled before the case went to court for $7,500. “The amount of the judgment is insignificant,” said Glenn Stevens, Martinez’s lawyer. “It’s so much better than the $100,000 home run that (plaintiff lawyer) Fran Campbell was after.” Meanwhile, Tim McCormick, head of City Hall’s building department, said 60 potential bootleg properties are currently being investigated and all but one meet habitability requirements. McCormick added property owners throughout Santa Monica are being notified of a new ordinance, passed by the City Council in December, which allows landlords to legalize long-standing bootlegged units that don’t pose health or safety risks. The next step is to go out into the field. “We’ve assigned staff to that task,” McCormick said, “but it’s obviously going to take some time to work through a list that size.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 10, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/041004.pdf?ref=smdp.com)