publication for website

Receivership Halts Deterioration, Restores Stability
The row house on West 112th Street was quickly turning into a
nightmare: The owner had moved to California, leaving behind
a roof that leaked badly. Eventually, rain and snow damaged a
wall shared with neighbors. One of eight connected row houses,
the property, if allowed to continue to deteriorate, could destroy
other units. It would have a devastating effect on a block that
had been spared the worst of the housing crisis.
Neighbors turned for help to Cudell Improvement Inc., the local
community development corporation. Cudell’s Executive Director,
Anita R. Brindza, saw that the neighbors’ nightmare could be a
dream receivership. “There are lots of reasons why community
development corporations shy away from receiverships,” Brindza
says. “A property might be too far gone for repairs; it might
carry a too-large mortgage; it might have little resale value; the
title could be tangled with liens; the housing market could be
down enough to make a quick resale unlikely. But none of that
would be a problem here. The brick row house could be repaired
for less than its value. It didn’t carry a mortgage. Its location on
a good street meant it could be resold quickly. And Cudell had
enough money to pay for the renovation.”
With Cudell’s help, the owners of the adjoining unit filed a
receivership action in the Housing Court. The Court appointed
Cudell receiver of the property, and gave them the authority to
contract for and supervise the necessary repair work.
Contractors fixed the roof and the common wall and cut down a
large pine tree in the front yard. After repairs were completed, the
three-bedroom row house was sold to a neighbor for $113,000.
Cudell was reimbursed for the cost of repairs and legal services,
and received a small fee, as well, for serving as receiver. The
original owner eventually contacted the Court, and received the
nearly $22,000 profit from the sale.
“It was nice to be able to help the people who complained,
because otherwise they would have had to abandon the
property,” Brindza says.
In recognition of his commitment
and efforts, Housing Advocates,
Inc., a Cleveland-based nonprofit
public interest law firm
and fair housing agency, awarded
Judge Corrigan the “Housing
Advocate of the Year” award, just
prior to the expiration of his term
as Housing Court Judge.
The early 1990s also saw one of
the first uses of receivership as
a nuisance abatement tool. The
Cleveland Restoration Society
filed one of the first actions of its
kind against the owner of a property
on South Boulevard, ultimately
saving a showcase home.
One of Judge Pianka’s early initiatives was the creation of the Selective
Intervention Program, or “SIP,” in 1998. SIP is a criminal diversion
program designed to guide owner-occupants who are first-time offenders
through the process of making repairs and bringing their properties up
to City code. Each defendant in SIP is assigned a Housing Specialist,
who assists the defendant in drawing up a contract with the Court,
promising to complete the necessary repairs within a specific period
of time. The Specialist explores resources available to the owners, and
reports to the Court on the owner’s progress. At the end of the contract
period, if the defendant has completed the program, the criminal case is
dismissed. In 2000, just two years after the program was created, more
than 300 defendants were referred into the program, with the vast majority
successfully completing the necessary repairs, and avoiding the stigma
of a criminal record. To date, the Court has referred more than 3,000
defendants to the SIP program.
The Housing Court recognized that education plays a significant role
in achieving compliance with the law. In 1998, the Housing Court,
In January 1996 Raymond L.
Pianka took office as the sixth
Cleveland Housing Court Judge.
A former City Councilman, Judge Pianka became the longest-serving
Housing Court Judge, on the bench for nineteen of the Court’s first
thirty-five years. His experience as a passionate advocate for the City of
Cleveland and its residents enabled him to hit the ground running. From
the outset, Judge Pianka focused the Housing Court’s efforts on achieving
compliance with the City’s codes, assisting those defendants who needed
extra help, while pursuing and punishing those who attempted to elude the
Court’s authority.
18