Click here if you’re unable to view the photo gallery on your mobile device.
A judge expressed skepticism Monday about the Moms 4 Housing activists’ right to occupy an empty West Oakland house, but didn’t immediately reject their claims — a move that left supporters feeling optimistic.
Lawyers for the group argued that Dominique Walker, a homeless mother of two small children, is entitled to stay in the house, even though she and other women moved in last month without the owner’s permission. They asked the judge to make new case law using a novel argument — housing is a human right. The dire nature of Oakland’s homelessness crisis gives the court authority to go beyond conventional precedent and rule in Walker’s favor, attorneys Micah Clatterbaugh and Leah Simon-Weisberg argued.
But the judge speculated it might be up to the executive or legislative branches, not the courts, to address this dilemma.
“There’s no doubt that these are extremely important issues, but I think it’s finding the right venue and the right case for that,” Alameda County Superior Court Judge Patrick McKinney II said to a courtroom packed to capacity with Moms 4 Housing supporters and media. “I’m not convinced this is the right case, but I’ll certainly consider all of the arguments presented.”
Meanwhile, Francisco Gutierrez, attorney for Wedgewood — the property owner — argued “trespassers” don’t have a right to the property they trespass upon.
McKinney took the matter under submission and is expected to rule in the coming days.
McKinney’s willingness to entertain Moms 4 Housing’s arguments gave supporters cause to celebrate.
“For us, that creates a lot of hopefulness in terms of his future decision,” said Simon-Weisberg.
Walker agreed.
“We consider that a win for now,” she said.
Wedgewood, a Redondo Beach-based real estate investment company that buys and flips distressed properties, took a different view. The company didn’t expect McKinney to rule immediately, said Sam Singer, who is handling public relations for Wedgewood.
“I think he expressed an understanding and concern for the issues that the squatters’ attorneys raised,” Singer said of the judge. “But I also think he expressed the confines of the law that he must rule under.”
Walker and Moms 4 Housing are attempting to call attention to the city’s homelessness crisis, and argue companies should not be allowed to buy investment properties and let them sit empty while Oakland residents are living on the streets. They are working with the Oakland Community Land Trust to buy the West Oakland house so they can continue living there, but Wedgewood has said it will not negotiate with them while they are illegally occupying the property.
Wedgewood served the women with an eviction notice about three weeks after they moved in, and the women filed paperwork to challenge the notice in court. On Christmas Eve, a representative from City Council President Rebecca Kaplan’s office made a controversial threat to consider seizing the property if Wedgewood fails to negotiate with Moms 4 Housing.
Kaplan’s policy director, Bobbi Lopez, reiterated that threat Monday, saying the city is researching eminent domain.
The argument Walker’s lawyers presented in court Monday was a “claim of right to possession.” Such a claim doesn’t usually apply to squatters. It’s typically used by legal tenants who are living in a home subject to eviction, but who were not named on the eviction notice — such as tenants in a home that has been foreclosed on.
“The court does have the authority to grant this claim, in the interest of justice,” Clatterbaugh said.
Gutierrez, Wedgewood’s attorney, countered that Walker hasn’t met the basic requirements to establish a claim to the house, such as proving she had a rental agreement with the home’s prior owner.
As far as Wedgewood is concerned, Moms 4 Housing is stealing.
“I think they’re a heartfelt group of individuals, but what they’ve done is legally, morally and ethically indefensible,” Singer said. “You can’t steal someone else’s property and occupy it as your own.”
