‘Hornet’s Nest’ : Condo Owners Wrangling Over Horse Evictions

The slick brochure promoted the Shadow Mountain Trails condos as “an equestrian town home and condominium community in Lake View Terrace. The best of all worlds . . . luxury in a rural setting.”

Indeed the project was novel, offering by Los Angeles standards what was affordable housing for people and horses. For people, a 52-unit condominium complex was built with spacious units costing about $100,000. For horses, a handsome redwood barn was erected with 34 stalls going for $5,000 each.

“I thought this would be a wonderful place to retire,” said Georgianna Stinnett, a resident of the complex. “I could live right next to a full-service barn, ride my horses and enjoy myself.”

But the condo community at 11300 Foothill Blvd., touted as the best of both worlds, has instead been like a “hornet’s nest,” one resident said. The good life that homeowners bought into has been soured by a nasty, complicated dispute over whether the horse owners can rightfully keep their horses there and purchase stalls in the barn.

The quarrel has pitted the financial interests of one side against the other. Many homeowners have grown tired of the arguments, which are now being waged in court, and are moving out.

“When your neighbors don’t speak to you, when they look the other way instead of waving, it is not fun,” Stinnett said. “It’s been very disappointing.”

Now, four thoroughbred horses, an old mare and a pony stand to be evicted from their barn condos. The future of the barn itself is uncertain and the full-service stable that was promised has instead been kept up and cleaned out by the equestrians.

Homeowners’ Suit

The four horse owners remaining in the condominiums are being sued by the homeowner association for trespassing and breaking the rules of the association’s by-laws.

The project’s homeowners at one point were forced to pay higher association dues because of skyrocketing insurance costs tied to horse-keeping on the property.

The developer is under investigation by the Los Angeles city attorney for a possible violation of the conditions of his building permit.

Furthermore, the dispute has angered the tightknit Lake View Terrace horse-owner community because years ago they embraced the idea of a large condominium project in their rural neighborhood only because the developer promised to build horse-keeping facilities, a trail and riding arena at the site. The local horse owners plan on banding together to help their equine-loving neighbors pay about $10,000 in legal fees.

“It’s a real complicated mess,” said Benjamin M. Reinhardt, the attorney for the horse owners at the condominium complex.

In March, the tension reached its peak when the homeowner association filed a lawsuit in Superior Court seeking, among other things, an injunction leading to the removal of the horses from the barn and unspecified monetary damages for the cost of stable rental, increased insurance costs and other fees.

Contingency Agreement

The problems began in 1983 and 1984, when horse owners signed an agreement to purchase a stall from Hugh Temple, president of Stoneman Corp. in Santa Monica, the condominium developer.

Court documents state that when horse owners purchased their own condominiums they were given the option to buy a stall at the stable for $4,900. Each stall sale, however, was made contingent on the condition that at least 28 stalls be sold.

But when the last of the 52 condominium units in the first phase had sold, fewer than 15 stalls had been sold. Then in late 1986, the court record states that the association’s $13,774-a-year liability insurance was canceled because of the “risks associated with horse keeping.”

By February, 1987, the association found new insurance but at $47,364, it was more than triple the original amount. At the same time the developer advised horse owners that “the condition to the sale of the stables had failed” and court documents state he returned their deposits and ordered them to remove the horses.

But four of the horse owners stayed, outraged because they claim Stoneman Corp. reneged on its implied promise to sell the stalls in the stable. They have accused the corporation in court documents of ceasing to push the sales of the stalls to instead concentrate on the construction of the project’s residential units.

“This breach of duty on Stoneman has directly caused the entire fiasco,” the horse owners allege in court documents.

Temple refused to discuss any matters regarding the condo project, including the failed sale of the horse condos, until the lawsuits are settled.

The attorney representing the homeowner association, Lawrence Teplin, did not return repeated phone calls from The Times over a two-day period.

Insurance Costs

Nancy Lamfers, who served as the president of the homeowner association in 1987, said the association also wanted the horses out because of the cost of the new policy, which forced homeowners’ dues up by $30 a month.

The horse owners later found a cheaper, $17,000 policy, which the association purchased. But in the meantime, Temple distanced himself from the stable issue by deeding ownership of the barn to the association.

At the same time, Lamfers said, Temple agreed to pay all the attorney fees for the homeowners association’s lawsuit against the horse owners.

Also, Temple agreed to pay for damages if the homeowners lost.

“In return all we had to do was waive that we would ever sue him on the barn issue,” Lamfers said. “It was a hell of a deal and we went with it because we wanted to solve this.”

Once the association owned the barn, members voted overwhelming to close it down, Lamfers said.

But the four remaining horse owners still refused to move.

They maintain they have a right to purchase the stalls because city officials only agreed to change the zoning for the project if it included horse-keeping property.

As a result of the dispute, the city attorney’s office is investigating Temple’s development on two fronts. First, the city granted Temple a $16,658 park fee credit because he promised to build a horse riding arena at the site. City inspectors stated in a report that the arena was never built.

Also, Deputy City Atty. Jeri L. Burge said if the horse stable is shut down, the project may be in violation of the building and zoning permits that were granted on the condition there would be stables on the property. She said both matters are still being studied and are not yet resolved.

Meanwhile, bad feelings persist among residents at the development.

“My feeling is everyone who bought here bought horse property. They saw the stables,” said Joan Childs, a horse owner. “If they didn’t want to share in the responsibility they didn’t have to move here.”

Lamfers and others disagree.

“Four horse owners feel that a majority of the association should share in the cost of keeping up the stables just because we share the property,” Lamfers said. “They are unrealistic and unyielding.”