Residents’ Suit Says Condos Badly Built : Developer of Playa del Rey Complex Blamed for Leaks, Crumbling Floors

“It’s like a Pandora’s box,” said Judi Mesibov, one of 187 condominium owners who are suing the developer of their Playa del Rey complex over allegedly substandard construction. “Every day something new is discovered.”

Mesibov and other residents of the Manitoba West project have a long list of complaints, including water-damaged ceilings and walls, crumbling floors, and poor soundproofing. They say that shoddy construction of their roofs has created an earthquake hazard and that bathroom floors do not meet fire-safety codes. The development’s recreation room, gymnasium and parking structures have flooded.

Problems Uncovered

Residents of the 9-year-old complex on Manitoba Street say many of the problems have been uncovered as others were being fixed, or have emerged as the buildings age.

In a lawsuit filed by their homeowners group, Manitoba West Owners Assn., the residents are asking $14 million from the developer, Don S. Levin; his company, DSL Construction Inc., and five subcontractors. The amount--more than $74,000 per unit--is for estimated repairs only. The homeowners are also asking for punitive damages to be determined by the court and for payment of their legal costs, which could reach $1 million.

Several real estate agents said the dispute has hurt property values at Manitoba West. They said recent sales have been at prices $30,000 to $60,000 below those of units at nearby buildings not under the cloud of a suit.

Filed in Superior Court in March, 1984, and assigned to the court’s Torrance Division, the lawsuit is set to go before a judge for pretrial motions Oct. 10 in a rented hall at the Torrance Marriott hotel because of a lack of courtrooms. Jury selection is scheduled to begin Nov. 13.

Levin, who continues to develop Westside residential and commercial properties, and his attorney, Thomas M. Janzen of Los Angeles, declined to be interviewed about Manitoba West.

Lee Barker, the lead attorney for the homeowners, said the trial could last as long as six months.

The homeowners also have retained an architect, a general contractor and various engineers, all of whom they plan to call as expert witnesses. Barker said he plans to introduce hundreds of photographs as evidence and show the jury videotapes of inspections and tests done on building materials.

The experts hired by the homeowners declined to be interviewed. However, Barker said their work has established that Manitoba West, made up of two condominium apartment buildings and 12 townhouse buildings, is riddled with building code violations.

The residents called in a city building inspector recently, hoping that he would bolster their case, even if it meant that they would be required to make some repairs. But the inspector, Donald Hubka of the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, declined to take sides.

Plans for Complex Lost

Hubka said he was handicapped in trying to determine whether many alleged violations are, in fact, violations, because Building and Safety has lost the plans it approved for the complex. Lawyers on both sides in the case, however, have copies of the plans.

Hubka found only one clear-cut violation of the building code--crumbling floors underneath rugs in hallways and inside some units of the condominium apartment buildings.

At the residents’ request, Hubka also inspected plywood roofing sheets on one of the buildings. The homeowners and their consultants pointed out that only two edges of the sheets were nailed to the building beneath, and that the nailing was done with six-penny box nails. The homeowners say eight-penny common nails--which are longer and sturdier--should have been used.

“The plywood is meant to be a structural member of the building,” said homeowner Chris Broome. “The fact that two edges aren’t nailed down means if there’s an earthquake, the whole building could lean. We could have doors and windows that become jammed.”

Hubka said that because relatively thin, 3/8-inch plywood was used on the roof, the smaller nails and the nailing pattern may be part of the building’s design and may have received approval from Building and Safety. He said he cannot know for certain without the plans.

Nor would he confirm or refute the homeowners’ charge that there is insufficient fire protection in bathrooms. A gypsum-concrete mix called Gypcrete, the same material that is crumbling beneath hallway rugs and inside some units, was to be poured on top of the plywood that lies underneath bathtubs and showers. In at least some bathrooms, the mixture did not flow over the entire area.

Homeowners discovered this when they tore out ceilings in units below to fix water damage caused by another problem. They say that without Gypcrete, the floors don’t meet the required one-hour resistance to burn-though in the event of a fire.

Manpower Lacking

Hubka said he could not determine without the plans whether Gypcrete was required under the tubs. Furthermore, he said, the department does not have the manpower to inspect floors throughout the complex.

“If they open up one area of the floor and show us a violation, we will write an order to repair that one section,” he said. “We will not write an order for the entire floor. We’re bound to cite only those areas where we actually see the problem. We cannot be certain that it’s everywhere.”

He acknowledged, however, that the construction of Manitoba West in 1979-80 may indeed have been substandard.

“At the time, I’ve heard, the industry was running wild,” Hubka said. “Carpenters one day were superintendents the next. That may be true in that building.”

Homeowners had hoped that Hubka’s inspection would yield a list of specific building code violations. The residents would have been ordered to make the repairs but could use the documents in the coming trial to support their allegations of faulty construction.

Timetable Required

Instead, Hubka ordered them to have their own architect or civil engineer identify the deficiencies in the buildings and list the necessary repairs. He ordered them to provide the information and a timetable for repairs by Dec. 6.

Homeowner Broome complained that Hubka was essentially ordering residents to do his work for him and that the cost of preparing such a report would be enormous.

“It would be six or seven weeks of work at a lot of money per hour,” he said. “I don’t know how much, but at least a hundred dollars an hour.”

Barker, the homeowners’ attorney, said he is confident that proof of violations will come out at the trial.

Meantime, the suit has affected property values of units at Manitoba West.

Condos ‘Undervalued’

“It makes them an easy $35,000 or $40,000 undervalued,” said Ken Conant of First Realty Better Homes & Gardens in Torrance.

Conant said a Manitoba West townhouse with two bedrooms, 2 1/2 baths and a den is on the market for $269,000 and would list for more than $300,000 if the quality of its construction weren’t disputed.

Sheila Fahringer, an agent with Prudential Playa del Rey Realty, said that two months ago she sold a 1,350-square-foot, two-bedroom condominium in Manitoba West for $204,000.

“It had a 600-square-foot patio,” she said. “A comparable unit in the area would be selling in the $250,000-to-$260,000 range.”

Franklin Martin, salesman at Fred Sands Realty in Marina del Rey, said prices at the complex are $30,000 to $40,000 below the usual market. He added that he does not like to show Manitoba West units to prospective buyers.

Legal ‘Cross-Fire’

“By law, we would disclose that the suit exists,” he said. “We wouldn’t be liable no matter who wins, but when people are upset they can start suing everybody. We could be hit in a cross-fire.”

One of the most persistent problems at Manitoba West, residents say, is dampness in walls and ceilings. They say water has gotten into walls in part because flashing, or sheet metal, at the edge of roofs was fastened down only with a thin layer of tar. When the tar gave way, rainwater ran underneath.

“We moved here in June, 1980,” said Rich Rifelli. “The first time it rained, we had gallons of water coming into our unit. The floor was like a wet sponge. We went back to the developer and asked him to solve our problems. They came out and caulked around the windows and caulked around the outside. It was a Band-Aid fix.”

Rifelli said he continued to battle water problems, with the homeowners association paying the bills, for five years.

Residents charge that ordinary wallboard was used around showers and tubs instead of waterproof material.

Mold Can’t Be Cleaned

“You push on the shower wall and it sounds like your tennis shoes do when it’s wet,” said condo owner Toni Delia. “We have mold that’s not cleanable because it’s inside the drywall. I’ve scrubbed and scrubbed, and it doesn’t come off.”

Delia said the dampness makes wallpaper peel off. She has taped hers in place.

Use of flimsy materials throughout the buildings has led to serious noise problems, residents said.

“I can hear the woman below me when she’s sliding the shower door,” said Mesibov.

“It’s so bad the homeowners are at each other’s throats,” said Rifelli. “A washer on the second floor sends vibrations so that the people below can’t sleep or watch their TV.”

Improper waterproofing of below-ground concrete blocks led to flooding of the complex’s gymnasium and recreation room, residents said.

Cost of Suit Extra

Those problems, and some others in common areas, have been repaired using funds from the association dues of about $200 a month. The cost of the lawsuit, however, is extra. Thus far, the owners have levied $3,000 per unit in special assessments to pay for the suit.

“We’re not dealing here with homeowners on the Silver Strand,” said Barker, their attorney. “The cost of this litigation has been a tremendous burden for them, and the homeowners have to worry about the prospect of an appeal that could drag it out a couple more years.”

He said the suit required too much time and work to be undertaken on a contingency basis.

The homeowners contend that the defendants’ strategy has been to prolong the case and run up costs as much as possible, often through taking depositions that must be attended by Barker or an associate.

“We believe they are trying to break us,” said Rifelli. “Every single homeowner received a deposition notice.”

“My deposition lasted two full days,” said Mesibov, “and they asked me everything except what I had for breakfast. They asked where I went to high school, things like that.”

She said the defendants and their insurance companies had eight to 10 attorneys present, “and two or three of them looked like they were falling asleep.”

Barker said the suit has dragged out in part because the trial promises to be a long one and there is a shortage of courtrooms. With a deadline approaching--the law requires trial to begin by Nov. 17--the parties agreed to the renting of a hall at the Torrance Marriott. Retired Superior Court Judge George Perkovitch will hear the case under a contract arrangement.

Clemon Brown of the Superior Court’s financial management division said the expense of renting a hall and hiring a judge is about the same as for a standard courthouse proceeding. The estimated cost in fiscal 1987-88 was $2,350 a day. The county picks up the tab.

“You pay your filing fees, and once you do that, you’re entitled to your day in court,” said Brown. Filing fees are about $200.