Best Best & Krieger News Feed

BB&K Successful in Post-Redevelopment Case for City Client

28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger LLP partners Victor L. Wolf, Iris P. Yang and Danielle G. Sakai successfully represented the City of Fontana in challenging the California Department of Finance’s refusal to approve payments owed under a long-standing Owner Participation Agreement following the dismantling of redevelopment agencies. The decision, handed down in August, preserved the City’s ability to receive settlement payments under the OPA amounting to an estimated $50-$70 million over the next 15 years.

The legislation that dissolved redevelopment agencies in 2012 requires successor agencies to periodically file a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule listing payments that are owed on the obligations that the successor agencies inherited from the dissolved redevelopment agencies. The ROPS must be approved by the successor agency’s oversight board and, ultimately, by the Department of Finance. The DOF disapproved the payments to the developer due under the OPA, preventing the developer from making settlement payments due to the City, on the grounds that the OPA violated public policy and other provisions of the Dissolution Law.

The OPA and its amendments were previously validated by the San Bernardino County Superior Court in four separate judgments pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 860, et seq. Despite these judgments and despite approving the OPA payments on seven previous ROPS, the DOF suddenly changed course. Following the precedent set in the recent ruling that Victor and Danielle secured in Macy v. City of Fontana 244 Cal.App.4th 1421 (2016), the trial court found that, because the OPA had been validated, it could not be challenged based upon the later-enacted Dissolution Law. As a result, the court held that the OPA constitutes an enforceable obligation and the DOF abused its discretion in refusing to approve the OPA payments.

The case is City of Fontana v. Michael Cohen, Director of Department of Finance, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 34-2015-80002138.

BB&K Represents City in Successful Recovery of Redevelopment Loans

19 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger LLP Partner Iris Yang represented the City of La Habra in its successful effort to recover millions of dollars in redevelopment financing.

The legislation that dissolved redevelopment agencies in 2012 provided that, in general, agreements between a redevelopment agency and the city (or county) that created it were invalid with a couple of exceptions. One exception was agreements executed in connection with a financing.

To receive property taxes to be able to make payments on their various obligations, successor agencies (the entities created after redevelopment agencies were dissolved) must periodically file a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule. The ROPS must be approved by the successor agency’s oversight board and, ultimately, by the California Department of Finance. The DOF can overrule an oversight board’s determination.

In 1998, La Habra issued Certificates of Participation to refinance bonds issued several years earlier by the former Redevelopment Agency. The City and Redevelopment Agency made a loan agreement whereby the Agency agreed to make payments to the City that were equal to the payments that the City had to make under the COPs documents.

The Successor Agency listed the loan agreement payments on its various ROPS. DOF approved payments under the loan agreement for several cycles, but then began disapproving them. DOF did not like the fact that the Agency had to pay accrued interest on payments that it was unable to make for a period of time, so it determined that the entire loan agreement was invalid.

The trial court agreed that the penalty provision was a standard provision in any loan agreement, and that DOF had abused its discretion in denying that the loan agreement was a valid enforceable obligation. For example, if one doesn’t make a mortgage payment, interest will accrue on the unpaid amount until both the accrued interest and unpaid amount are fully repaid.

For La Habra, this represents being able to recover about $9 million, which includes about $5.5 million in accrued interest and principal payments that were advanced by the City General Fund to make payments on behalf of the former Redevelopment Agency.

The case is City of La Habra and City of La Habra Successor Agency v. Michael Cohen in his Capacity as Director of the Department of Finance, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2015-80002208.

BB&K Successful in Appellate Court in Post-Redevelopment Case for City Client

26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger LLP partners Victor L. Wolf and Danielle G. Sakai won an appeal for the City of Fontana in a lawsuit over the City’s liability following the dismantling of redevelopment agencies. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a San Bernardino Superior Court decision on Feb. 23 that a successor agency, not the city that controls it, may be held liable for preexisting obligations of a redevelopment agency.

Before the California Legislature dissolved redevelopment agencies in 2011, the plaintiffs sued the Fontana Redevelopment Agency for allegedly failing to provide required low- and moderate-income housing. The City of Fontana was named as a defendant after the dissolution, in its capacity as a successor agency and as the municipality in control over the agency. The BB&K team won the City’s dismissal in a demurrer, which the appellate court affirmed. The court found that, while the City controlled the agency, neither it or its general fund were liable for the previous obligations of the redevelopment agency.

The case is Macy et al. v. The City of Fontana, D068508