A mobile home park owner who fought the city of Santa Clarita in the courts for years over solar panels he put up all over his hillside property wants the city to pay his legal fees for what he described as a lawsuit that violated his rights as a property owner, he said Friday.
The lawsuit by the city of Santa Clarita against the owners of Canyon View Estates mobile home park was completed in October, according to the Second Appellate District of the Judicial Branch of California website.
The last note on the actual case states, “Each party to bear their own costs on appeal.”
However, Kerry Seidenglanz, whose family owns the land, said there’s case law to support his claim that the city’s efforts violated his rights as a property owner, which is why he should be able to recoup his legal costs. He estimated that he’s spent more than $3 million on counsel fighting the city’s lawsuit.
The case is listed as a topic on the Santa Clarita City Council agenda for a closed-session discussion Tuesday of “existing litigation,” with a reference to the appellate case number for the lawsuit.
The city of Santa Clarita first filed its lawsuit in September 2018 in an effort to get the solar panels removed.
L.A. County Superior Court Judge Stephen Pfahler agreed with the city that the solar panels were considered a nuisance in a January 2022 ruling.
But he also found “equitable estoppel,” which meant Seidenglanz had to be compensated for his legal property, the solar panels and their installation. That value was estimated to be in the neighborhood of $5 million.
The city filed an appeal that did not end up helping.
After nearly six years since the original lawsuit was filed, the appellate court ruled in August that only the portion outside the park, less than 1% of the more than 6,500 solar panels, were an abatable nuisance.
Carrie Lujan, communications manager for the city of Santa Clarita, declined to provide information Friday regarding the current total for the city’s legal fees, or the closed-session discussion item.
A past total indicated the city had spent more than $1 million as of August 2023.
“Because the landowners did not prove their equitable estoppel defense with respect to the solar panels on the adjacent property,” according to the August judgment, “the city does not have to compensate the landowners to compel removal.”
