Ex-Carson Pines Apartment owner fined $500, avoids jail time for repeatedly ignoring court orders to fix 'nuisance' complex

On Wednesday, William “Bill” Kranz, the now-former owner of the Carson Pines Apartment complex, appeared in court and was found to be guilty of contempt of court and fined $500.

This is the final court hearing for Kranz as the owner of Carson Pines, after a two-year battle during which the courts repeatedly asked Kranz to make fixes to the property.

Beginning in May 2021, code enforcement was called to Carson Pines on report of a large amount of cats being kept in apartments owned by Kranz. In total, 78 cats were found, which Kranz said belonged to his wife who was rescuing them.

During that time, code enforcement noted there were numerous issues with the property, most pressing being stairways and catwalks on the second floor that would need to be replaced.

However, Kranz repeatedly ignored orders from the court and code enforcement to hire a legal contractor and an engineer and begin repairs.

Kranz appeared with his attorney, Orrin Johnson, who made a case that Kranz was simply a man who was “trying to help poor people” and “should have tripled their rent years ago.”

The argument Johnson gave was that Kranz could not make the repairs because he was not making a profit on the apartments due to the “unreasonably low” rent he was charging tenants.

“He was trying to be the nice guy and not raise the rents on the poor people as he should have,” Johnson said.

The average rent for Carson Pines Apartment is $800, according to Johnson. With approximately 60 units, Kranz was paid somewhere in the ballpark of $1.15 million in rent during the two years he spent in court, assuming every apartment was consistently inhabited.

The cost to fix the walkways and stairs, according to Johnson, was $200,000. The roof repairs that would need to occur second would cost around $300,000.

Judge Kristin Luis, who has presided over the majority of Kranz’s appearances, stated that at no point did Kranz ever mention he could not financially complete the repairs. On the contrary, Kranz repeatedly told the court that he was securing loans and contractors and the repairs would begin imminently.

Johnson also said that it was the city’s responsibility to force the repairs on Kranz, which they failed to do. He stated that through the abatement process, the city should have secured bids and sent Kranz a bill for the repairs, which would have saved tenants from being red tagged and evicted.

During one hearing, after over a year of Kranz’s court appearances, the city said they would send out for bids for contractors to fix the property, according to Johnson. He argued that for this reason, Kranz should not be held in contempt.

“Regardless of whether the city said they would provide bids, it’s Mr. Kranz’s obligation to fix the property,” Luis said.

At one point, according to Luis, in December 2021, Kranz told the court he had secured a contractor and the repairs would take approximately five months. He then told the court repairs were underway; however, when code enforcement went to check on the property during this time, they reported no work had been done.

Johnson challenged this, stating multiple times that work had been done: Kranz had recarpeted the walkways on the second floor.

However, code enforcement reported to the court that Kranz placed new carpeting over dry rot, and that the carpets were the least of the issues when the complex was quickly becoming structurally unsafe.

Luis stated the court had informed Kranz multiple times that he was not allowed to do non-permitted work on the premises.

“You can’t paint over rot, you can’t carpet over rotting wood, you can’t do non-permitted work — I don’t know how many times I had to say that,” Luis said. “And yet you continued to do non-permitted work. At some point you have to question the safety of the premises.”

According to Johnson, no permits had been pulled (applied for) from the city for over 18 years; something that code enforcement should have recognized and enforced.

Johnson also argued that at no point did code enforcement or the court explicitly tell Kranz what was wrong with the property or how to fix it, until Dec. 7, 2022.

Luis said that the idea Kranz did not know what was wrong with his property was “absurd,” and that he had been ordered to meet with code enforcement to discuss the issues with the property multiple times before he was threatened with contempt.

Johnson said that contempt should have never been on the table, especially because Kranz was repeatedly told over the two years he appeared in court that he would not face jail time. However, Luis said, that at some point when court orders are not being followed, jail time can be warranted.

Johnson stated that after “woefully and grossly inaccurate media reports” caused the story to “blow up in the press,” Kranz was forced to find an attorney — something the court should have provided him, he argued.

"This is why there's danger when the media is involved," Johnson continued.

“Mr. Kranz has a generous heart,” Johnson said. “But he didn’t keep good records, and he operated by the seat of his pants to help people out. He did literally everything in his power to stop this place from being a nuisance but it all comes down to money. He never had the ability to comply financially.”

Johnson argued that since Kranz sold the complex the day before the court appearance, he was no longer in contempt of court, and the new owners had set aside $1.5 million to complete all necessary repairs.

Luis determined that jail time, as the District Attorney’s office was pushing for, would not be appropriate in this case, especially considering his 25 days in jail would be at the taxpayers expense.

Luis ordered Kranz to pay the maximum fine warranted for a contempt of court charge, which was $500.

“The court’s orders need to be followed,” Luis said. “When they’re issued and nothing happens, there’s no point to them. The goal was to get you to comply, and it did not happen.”