Judgment remains unpaid

When Halverson moved to Las Vegas in 1995, her sister moved into the apartment, where rent controls had frozen the rent at 1980 rates.

When the landlords raised the rent in 2000, claiming Halverson was no longer a tenant, Halverson sued — and lost.

She appealed — and lost.

She appealed again — and lost.

In the end a San Francisco judge ordered Halverson to pay more than $42,000 to cover legal costs for the landlords. More than two years later, the now-District Court judge hasn’t paid a dime.

“We are pursuing collection,” said Candace Carlyon, the landlords’ Las Vegas lawyer.

Halverson declined comment through her spokeswoman.

The dispute arose over an apartment Halverson first rented in 1980 at the south end of San Francisco. Because of rent controls, she paid the same rent until she moved out in 1995 to become a law clerk in Las Vegas. Her sister, Antonette LaMacchia, moved into the apartment and continued to pay the same rent, according to court filings.

Halverson, who was then known as Elizabeth LaMacchia, said in court papers that the landlords agreed to the arrangement. The landlords said they agreed because Halverson told them the move was only temporary and she intended to return.

More than four years later, the landlords tired of waiting for Halverson and raised the rent about 300 percent.

“It became apparent that (Halverson) had vacated the premises and was attempting to keep the premises for her sister at 1980 rates,” lawyers for the landlords wrote in court papers.

Halverson challenged the increase before the San Francisco rent board, which ruled 5-0 against her.

She sought to overturn the board’s ruling with a September 2001 lawsuit in California Superior Court, but judge Ronald Quidachay ruled against her based on Halverson working and owning a home in Las Vegas.

She appealed that ruling to the California Courts of Appeal, which also upheld the original ruling. Finally, Halverson appealed to the state Supreme Court, which refused to take the case.

The landlords sought to recoup the legal fees they paid during what they called Halverson’s “scorched earth campaign,” and Quidachay in October 2004 awarded them $23,009 for the original suit and $15,230 for the subsequent appeals. With interest, the judgment totaled $42,231.

Three months later, one of the landlords, Hilda Faziola, filed suit in Nevada to try to collect the judgment.

Halverson argued she was being treated unfairly as a Nevada resident and that the California law didn’t specify how long a person must live there to be a full-time resident.

“There is a good faith argument to be made that the unequal treatment of a Nevada citizen by the California courts rises to the level of a violation of due process,” she wrote.

Faziola’s lawyers in Las Vegas disagreed.

“The Rent Board, the California Superior Court, the California appellate court, and the California Supreme Court have all rejected (Halverson’s) arguments,” they wrote. “Apparently unable to accept that the merits of her argument are unpersuasive or ill-conceived, judgment debtor has now resorted to disparaging the tribunals that have considered and rejected her arguments.”

After a March 2005 hearing, District Judge David Wall postponed the $15,230 judgment pending Halverson’s appeal of the fees in California Superior Court. Wall also postponed the $23,009 judgment as long as Halverson posted a $25,000 bond within a week.

Halverson never posted the bond and lost her appeal of the legal fees, leaving Halverson to pay the entire $42,231.

Craig Walton, president of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics, said the judge should pay the judgment and set an example for others who face a court-ordered judgment.

“She fought and fought and fought, and lost and lost and lost,” Walton said.