2 Sides Claim Win in Lengthy Rent Dispute

A Municipal Court jury Tuesday found landlord Carmine Esposito and his wife liable for operating substandard apartments and awarded more than $94,000 to 24 of his tenants, paving the way for a possible settlement for the 43 remaining tenants in the county’s longest landlord-renter dispute.

Even as attorneys on both sides termed the jury award a victory, some of the tenants said they were disappointed with the amount, which came to $94,568. Once the award is divvied up among the 24 plaintiffs, each household is entitled to either $5,854 or $8,894, depending on whether they live in a one- or two-bedroom apartment unit.

The award represents only what jurors felt was rent overpaid by the tenants for living in substandard apartments. The overpayment occurred between 1983, when the Espositos bought the apartments, to 1985, when the tenants filed suit.

Jurors said they did not believe that Esposito and his wife, Mirian, both 63, committed fraud, oppression and malice in running the complex on West Brook Street in Santa Ana. Therefore, jurors said, they did not award damages for emotional and physical distress that the tenants have alleged.

The award “is just not enough for the pain and suffering I’ve gone through,” said Yolanda Rivas, 35, who has lived in a two-bedroom unit in the apartment complex for the past 10 years. “I think it’s OK, better than nothing, but I still don’t think it’s fair.”

Stuart M. Parker, attorney for the tenants, however, said he is pleased with the jury’s verdict, even though he understands some of the disappointment his clients expressed.

“Everybody probably wants the moon,” Parker said outside the courtroom, “but in conservative Orange County, this is a substantial amount for this kind of case.”

While the seven-week trial focused on two of the complex’s six apartment buildings for monetary award purposes, jurors were instructed to determine whether Esposito or the tenants should be held liable for the run-down condition of the buildings. Because jurors found that Esposito was responsible, it will now be easier to settle cases on the remaining four buildings, both sides said.

Both sides have until June 4 to return to Judge Gary P. Ryan’s courtroom to settle or to go to trial on the remaining cases. If Esposito decides to settle, he will be ordered to pay an additional $153,200 to the tenants living in those buildings, according to his attorney, James R. Wakefield.

The combined total of Tuesday’s award and the additional amount, $247,768, is considerably less than the $400,000 the tenants had sought.

“We won a battle in court today,” Esposito said after the verdict. “They originally were talking about millions of dollars” to settle.

“The jury has vindicated our position,” Wakefield said. “I got a better deal from the jury than I would have gotten from the plaintiffs.”

The complex and bitter dispute dates back to February, 1985, when a string of civil suits and countersuits were filed between the tenants and Esposito.

Seventy tenants, in their consolidated civil suits, claimed that they lived in roach- and vermin-infested squalor. They also alleged that Esposito took little or no action when they complained about holes in the walls, corroded plumbing and short-circuited electrical units, among other substandard amenities.

To force Esposito’s hand, the tenants, with the aid of several nonprofit groups, participated in what is believed to be the first organized rent strike in the county. During the strike, a judge ordered that the tenants pay reduced rents to a court-appointed receiver, who in turn dispersed part of the money to Esposito for building repairs.

Esposito countersued the tenants, claiming that they were partly responsible for the blighted buildings because they crowded the apartments and kept them in unsanitary conditions. He also claimed that he spent $500,000 for repairs only to have the tenants “trash” their apartments. In his suit, Esposito also asked for damages, alleging that the tenants wrongly carried out the rent strike.

Since then, three of the original plaintiffs have settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.