> ## 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. # Renters victorious in small claims fight with landlord - URL: https://www.smdp.com/renters-victorious-in-small-claims-fight-with-landlord/ - Published: 2002-06-05T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T00:19:06.000Z - Author: Guest Author - Tags: Real Estate & Housing, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Landlord to appeal ruling in favor of former tenants* *By Daily Press Staff Writer* A Santa Monica landlord violated his own lease when repairs to an apartment turned into a massive construction project, a small claims judge ruled Monday. Roommates Maria J. Thomas and Jenny Marchick took landlord Marco Ramirez to small claims court for $3,000 and $5,000, respectively. They argued that they were forced to move from their 17th Street apartment when repair work got out of hand and therefore they should not be penalized by having their security deposit withheld. The women also sued for hundreds of dollars in damages to their belongings, which was caused during construction. But Ramirez argued that his partner had written in the lease that repairs were scheduled for the unit and the two roommates were made aware in advance that their $1,500 a month rent would not be discounted. However, Judge Pro Tem Norman Axe found that Ramirez had violated the lease and ruled in favor of the two women. Thomas was awarded $2,068.27 and Marchick was given $3,450.63. Axe found that the repairs listed in the lease were to begin when the lease commenced in July 2001\. They didn’t actually start until months later. Also, the repairs were supposed to be limited to fixing the roof, replacing windows and other minor items. However, construction workers knocked down an inside wall and began a massive renovation of the apartment’s interior. In fact, the work interfered so much in the women’s lives, they got a “stop work” order in October 2001 from the City of Santa Monica until Ramirez could obtain the proper permits for the work being done. When work restarted, the women called a meeting with Ramirez and outlined their grievances and asked him for some type of remedy. After an agreement could not be worked out, they moved out. Ramirez agreed construction had been messy, but he said his unit was undergoing the same renovations and he did not have to move out. He said work was expanded when complications arose in the apartment. That’s why he said repairs that were only meant to take weeks stretched into a six-month ordeal. “Sometimes when you start construction projects like this, things happen that complicate things,” Ramirez said. Also, Ramirez said he had a verbal agreement with the women on how to compensate them for the damage. But Axe said if complications had arisen, then an agreement needed to be made in writing with his tenants. “Verbal agreements mean nothing,” he said. “You have to get everything in writing.” And the judge said that if Ramirez and his partner wrote in the lease that repairs were going to be made to the apartment, then they should have explained to the women the true extent of those projects. “If you wanted to go beyond the construction listed in the lease, then you need to get those changes agreed upon in writing from your tenants,” he said. Ramirez said he was going to appeal the judge’s decision to Santa Monica Superior Court. 0 1 CBB 1 00050000000B00000002 0 1 CBB 0 *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 5, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/060502.pdf?ref=smdp.com)