All posts by HoodVsMeli

Illegal Garage Loft Inhumane Living Conditions

 

 

      ANYONE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE ILLEGAL GARAGE LOFT WITHIN DESIRE KOCARSLAN’S 605 PASEO DEL MAR IS WELCOME TO SEND COMMENTARY, EITHER FOR ATTRIBUTION OR ANONYMOUSLY, TO THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL ADDRESS:
NEIGHBOR@605PASEODELMAR.COM

__________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE 2018:  It had appeared that both Adam and Susan had found a way to escape the dire situation at 605 Paseo del Mar.  On behalf of the neighborhood, we thanked God for their new, improved situation and wished them the best of fortune this year and moving forward.  However, as we have learned more, it appears that for some reason they have maintained their fealty to Desire Kocarslan.  More real truth, vs. lies on what transpired at 605 Paseo del Mar is forthcoming.  Stay tuned.

Gun Being Aimed from Front of Garage at 605 Paseo del Mar: more information may be forthcoming regarding the identity of this gunman apparently wearing a sling.

__________________________________________________________________________

Neighbors of 605 Paseo del Mar have witnessed over the course of 2017 a very hard working man attending to maintenance outside 605 Paseo del Mar.  Even during the 2017 Christmas holiday season when he appeared injured wearing a sling to support his shoulder/collar/arm, the worker appeared from the street to be slaving away sanding the home’s front door.  One would expect this kind of labor to be valued in the market at a minimum of $10/hour (minimum wage); assuming a minimum of 40 hours/week of work, this would amount to at least $1,600/month of labor.

We have been informed that Desire Meli Kocarslan had built illegally (w/o PVE City permit) a shabby, unsafe (fire hazard to occupant) loft above the cars in 605 Paseo del Mar’s garage.  Neighbors suspected this was the case after noticing a poorly constructed (not even close to Code), seemingly not watertight window on the roof over this garage.

605 Paseo del Mar Garage Roof Unpermitted Window: it is clear from cursory inspection this window was not cut out or installed to Code

We now have been informed that this hard working maintenance laborer, who reportedly found himself homeless around the time of becoming associated with Kocarslan, is living in inhumane conditions in this “loft” over the cars in her garage.  Reportedly, he is being compensated a mere $100/week ($400/month) and given the illegal, inhumane living conditioned loft as living space.   See photos below.

Illegal Garage Loft Entry/Exit Ladder from Garage Floor: reportedly the laborer living in the illegal loft broke his collar bone running down this ladder to Kocarslan’s demands for his presence; she reportedly insisted he keep working even after X-rays and doctors dictated otherwise
Illegal Garage Loft Sleeping Cupboard: this is the location where Kocarslan reportedly has the laborer sleep within the illegal garage loft
Illegal Garage Loft Showering Area? Towel hanging over a metal bar in what has been reported is a primitive shower device in the illegal garage loft
Illegal Garage Loft Showerhead: reportedly this is the primitive showering location used by the laborer
Illegal Garage Loft Cooking Area: on reportedly $100/week in cash compensation, one cannot afford much in the way of healthy eating

Illegal Garage Loft TV, Window & Sink: the illegal space has been outfitted with a TV and security camera monitoring as part of its residential space

City of Palos Verdes Response? As usual, Nothing.  Palos Verdes Estates municipal management’s Deputy City Manager Sheri Repp Loadsman was informed of the illegal loft in September 2017 at the time that illegal short-term rental (AirBnB) activity was reported at the same location.  As of December 2017, no action appears to have been taken to rectify this illegal garage loft.  This is despite clear, multiple violations to the City’s municipal code, building code, and California State labor (clearly being compensated well below minimum wage).

Illegal Event Vendor Wall of Shame

It is a crime to violate a law.  That much is simple.  However, what needs to be emphasized in this situation is that any vendor associated with an illegal act at 605 Paseo del Mar, by providing products or services (e.g., wedding planning, tables, chairs, lighting, catering) is complicit in committing that crime.  Again, if your company has provided services to Desire Kocarslan’s “Chateau del Mar” for an illegal event at 605 Paseo del Mar, Palos Verdes Estates, CA, you have aided and abetted a crime.

The following is a list of vendors who have aided and abetted illegal acts by Desire Kocarslan and/or her guests:

OCLA Events (event services – Natasha Renee Kossman client):  John Sugrue, President and Founder of OCLA Events, seems to have no problem aiding and abetting illegal acts by his filling his pockets from this illegal wedding.  John Sugrue ((949) 374-7258) should be ashamed at himself for what he did to this peaceful neighborhood, all its families and even to a small baby who was disturbed repeatedly by his molesting event acts.  Sugrue outsourced some of the work to ATB’s Jose Henandez.

605 Paseo del Mar Struck by Vandalism (click here; scroll down to Sept. 17)
“Between 6 p.m. Sept. 17 and noon Sept. 19, eggs were thrown on a resident’s vehicle in the 600 block of Paseo Del Mar, causing damage.”

Dawn Boulden / Just4You Events (wedding planner for Natasha Renee Kossman and Michael Kossman):  this woman (reachable at (909) 446-5308) could be considered the mastermind of the entire illegal act, as it would be negligent for a wedding planner to book a residence nowhere near a commercial location for a 140-160 (reported body count) person wedding and not be sure that the venue is simply legal.  Thus, it is logical to conclude that, as a professional wedding planner, Dawn Boulden did know that the residence was illegal but went ahead with her plans anyway, neighborhood and law be damned.  As long as Dawn Boulden got money in her pocket, why should she care if she was aiding and abetting the breaking of PVE’s laws?

Choura Events (event services – Hichem Sandid & Jennifer Phillips clients; Elaine Phillips mother):  Ryan Choura, President of Choura Events ((310) 320-6200),  Sparks Joey LinkedIn Photo 11-10-2015should be ashamed of himself for aiding and abetting illegal acts by his filling his pockets from this illegal wedding.  Lighting provided by Joey Sparks of Choura Events.

From an interested party:

“There are hundreds of wedding coordinators, there are only a few dozen rental companies in the area qualified to service these events.  Rental companies are very concerned with being banned from doing business in different cities.  A more forceful letter to the owners or a rental company, stating that 605 PdM is an unlicensed venue and anyone found doing business there will be cited by the city or have their business license revoked – may be enough to scare them away.  If a client can’t get the necessary rental equipment in, they can’t have a party.  It’s that easy.”

Kocarslan Neighbors Complaint Wall

NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE BEEN HARMED BY ANY ILLEGAL RENTAL ACTIVITY AT DESIRE KOCARSLAN’S 605 PASEO DEL MAR ARE WELCOME TO SEND COMMENTARY, EITHER FOR ATTRIBUTION OR ANONYMOUSLY, TO THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL ADDRESS:
NEIGHBOR@605PASEODELMAR.COM

_______________________________________________________________________

Melahat Uzumcu is a disgrace to the PVE community.  Residents reside here to raise their children and live peaceful lives. After hearing about the launch of this website, I wasn’t at all surprised to learn of the numerous lawsuits filed against her.

It’s no wonder why she changed her name to Desire Meli Kocarslan. Although, it wasn’t long before her illegal actions surfaced. She should be ashamed of herself, stop using her home as an event venue, find a decent full time job and set a good example for her daughters.

As a resident here in PVE, I hope that the PVEPD and city are working together to shut her business down. What Melahat is doing is illegal, unethical and needs to stop now!

It’s unfair to the renters that she profits from and certainly unfair to the neighbors who have to endure the noise and disruption in the quality of their lives.

Keep the peace. Keep community.

Residential Zoning Doesn’t Stop Kocarslan from Commercial Activity:   Whether it be illegal short-term rentals or a related high flow of vehicular traffic, 605 Paseo del Mar seems more like a run-down youth hostel than elegant coastal estate

609 Paseo del Mar, Palos Verdes Estates, CA  90274 is now for sale (click here) right next door to the Kocarslan/Uzumcu residence.  Looks like we’re about to find out what the discount is for the value of a property next door to a law breaking, event venue and short-term rental AirBnB/Homeaway (click here) property.


605 Paseo del Mar Struck by Vandalism (click here; scroll down to Sept. 17)
“Between 6 p.m. Sept. 17 and noon Sept. 19, eggs were thrown on a resident’s vehicle in the 600 block of Paseo Del Mar, causing damage.”

Not only should the wedding planner (supposedly doing this job professionally) have obtained permission, but I was told in no uncertain terms on Friday afternoon by the bride herself that 605PdM/Uzumcu/Kocarslan specifically directed the wedding party to deceive PVEPD and others into believing the bride/groom were friends of Uzumcu/Kocarslan, rather than the customers of a commercial event venue enterprise as is the truth.  Again, I must emphasize, everyone on that property is “in on it.”

If a bride/groom want to have a beautiful, legal PVE wedding, there is a perfect place for it perhaps ½ mile at most right up the hill.  It is called La Venta Inn, a licensed, commercially zoned event venue at which I have attended two weddings myself.  The views are breathtaking, and the costs reasonable (though you don’t get the venue for a) 3-7, 24/hour days and b) with a mansion fronting as a boutique hotel).  It is for this reason Ms. Natasha Cleveland/Natasha Kossman and and her fiancé Michael Kossman of Atlanta, GA and Wells Fargo went with the illegal 605PdM venue – it comes at a massive discount to fair market value of a COMMERICALLY ZONED EVENT VENUE AND BOUTIQUE HOTEL.

———————————————————————————

Whether the couple are aware or not is immaterial – the wedding planner should be. 

A general contractor doing business in PVE needs to have a business license with the city.  If the contractor block roadways, brings large trucks into the city roadways without acquiring a transportation permit indemnifying the city, continues construction late into the evening, and repeatedly disrupts the neighborhood and violate local laws, I would imagine that the city building department would have some recourse against continued license renewal and/or fines. 

Someone carrying out a commercial event planning business should need a similar license – I am sure that if the Golf Club, Beach Club, La Venta or one of the restaurants acted irresponsibly and in blatant disregard to local safety, health, alcohol or zoning laws, renewal of their licenses would be brought to the attention of our city management and an appropriate recourse levied against their continued operations.  The event planner at 605 Paseo del Mar (and future event planners at that address – because I would bet that this is not the last commercial event that the owner of that property will stage) should be licensed and should be required to not only be required to adhere to local zoning laws but to comply with local health, safety, and alcohol laws.

———————————————————————————

Calls were made in to the PVEPD for noise complaints around 8:30 pm (Hazel dispatcher) and again upon coming back up to our bedroom at 1:30 a.m. (Roxanna dispatcher), both stating that our entire family was being kept awake by essentially out of control noise of people leaving the illegal wedding (screaming, loud laughing/talking, car doors slamming, alarms being deactivated).  We, normally sleeping in our own upstairs bedroom next to our young child, actually had to move her crib downstairs into a dark corner of our house, without any air ocean/cool air flow, so that she would stop being awakened by the noise.  That’s right – the cacophony coming from people leaving the illegal Natasha Cleveland/Natasha Kossman – Michael Kossman wedding party, people having no respect for the neighbors, forced us to relocate our family’s own sleeping.

Importantly, everyone should know that the wedding party is not an innocent, uninformed pair of sweet newlyweds.  I was informed that the wedding planner, a Dawn Boldon (or something like that – the bride appears to have lied about her name), clearly told the wedding party that the house had experienced zoning issues for illegal weddings in past, but that if they told the PVEPD that the wedding party was friends with 605PdM/Uzumcu everything should go OK.  Indeed, it is common sense and simply obvious that on any wedding planner’s checklist, if assessing for a wedding/reception a high-end home in a clearly residential, non-commercial neighborhood, the legality of that venue.  A one-minute Google search (finding all the 09/2009 articles in LA Times and Daily Breeze) and/or call to City Hall would return the answer, “No, this is not legal.  You should find another location.”  These people knew, and as another neighbor can attest were unapologetic for, this was an illegal use of a residence, but they did it anyway.

———————————————————————————

We are the residents most directly affected by Paseo del Mar.  It appears from recent activity last night and earlier today that the owner at 605 Paseo del Mar has rented her home for a large commercial event.  The history of 605 Paseo del Mar is well known within our city and community.  We hope to prevent the expansion of activities that our city encountered several years ago.

Over the past year, we have seen continued party rental engagements at 605 Paseo del Mar and have notified the police department on numerous occasions of such activity.  We urge that the city will take action with this weekend’s event and stop further commercial activities at the residence. 

We welcome the opportunity to discuss with all of you this ongoing commercial activity and try together to resolve this matter at 605 Paseo del Mar and possibly at other locations within the city.

———————————————————————————

My wife and I reside at [a home in very close proximity to 605 Paseo del Mar].  We are aware of the owners of 605 Paseo Del Mar using their home as a party rental venue.  Our home is [firmly in the range of that residence] and can hear and view the events.  These are commercial activities in a beautiful residential neighborhood. We ask the police department simply to enforce the law and stop any further commercial events from being held at 605 Paseo Del Mar. Thank you.

———————————————————————————

There used to be a chap at the golf club that cheated every conceivable way. All of all kept coming up with ways to insure that he didn’t cheat.

After many years, I addressed the group and aid, “Let’s face it guys, he’s just a hell of a lot smarter than us and there is no way we can stop him from cheating. Let’s just quit trying and just not include him into the betting. It worked. He played along with us, wasn’t part of the bets so we didn’t care what phony scores he turned in for his handicap.

I suspect Uzumcu fits that pattern ….

———————————————————————————

The “host” of the event was the groom, Joe Lee. He reported that he was a friend of “605’s” owner(Umzucu) and was not renting it for his “family” get together. When questioned about how he knew Umzucu, Lee refused to answer me other than they have a mutual friend.

On Friday evening, I notified the Police that there was activity at “605” and a Bobtail truck seemed to be delivering material. As reported to me last night by Sgt. Gonzalez, he visited “605” on Friday evening and spoke to Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee reported that he was a family friend and was having an event for approximately 35 people. When I asked Sgt. Gonzalez if Umzucu was present at the party he reported that Lee told him Umzucu will be back on Saturday. (FYI, Umzucu was not present at the party and in fact was contacted by PV Police and she had an unidentified friend drive by and check on what the problem was).

Saturday: Other neighbors returning home in the early evening saw the Valet parking set up at “605” and called me and then the Police …. I went to the Valet parking set-up and talked to Par 4 Valet workers. They informed me that they were expecting 75 cars and the event was schedule until midnight. I contacted PV Police and reported this information. The Police then sent Sgt. Gonzalez and Officer Garcia to investigate.

1st Police visit: Sgt. Gonzalez & Officer Garcia arrive. Officer Garcia went into the party to ascertain the number count. Apparently, the Valet service had down-sized their expected numbers with their discussion with the Police. Officer Garcia returned from inside “605” and reported an estimated guest count of 40 people. While I completed my conversation with the Police, outside of “605”, 4 “guest” arrived and a van with supplies (I did not count the van). The Police told me to call them back if the Party increased. Minutes after the Police left, 2 cars self parked and 4 cars valet parked and 10 more guest arrived. Per Officer Garcia’s count, the court order number had now been exceeded.

I contacted the Police and informed Sgt. Gonzalez that the number count had been exceeded. He informed me that he was trying to contact Umzucu and he would send out someone to confirm the information. Approximately, 30-45 minutes later and no police visit. I then proceeded to count the vehicles parked on the street. There were 36 street parked vehicles and an estimated 6 – 8 cars parked in “605’s” driveway. I called the Police again and reported the numbers. Assuming only one person per vehicle and the “guest count” had nearly exceeded the court order.

2nd Police visit: Officer Garcia and Officer Ackers(sp?) arrived. Officer Garcia went inside and then shortly came out to question me about my discussion I had earlier with the host, Mr. Lee. I informed her that Mr. Lee approached me on my driveway to ask us not to cause any problems for him. I was cordial to Mr. Lee and informed him that our(the neighbors) concerns are not with him. At this time I questioned Officer Garcia about this questioning. What Mr. Lee and I talk about seems secondary to the issue. I also asked Officer Garcia that Mr. Lee lied about his numbers to Sgt. Gonzalez Friday night so why would you believe what he says. Officer Garcia responded that she knew nothing about that. I suggested she talk to her Sgt. Officer Garcia then went back into “605” and while I and Officer Acker stood outside on Paseo del Mar. (NOTE: it was at this time that some unidentified individual drove up reportedly per Umzucu’c request, to check things out). About 20-30 minutes later, Officer Garcia came back out and informed that the party number had exceeded and that after discussion with the Supervisor(Sgt. Gonzalez), that 10 people were going to have to leave the party.

———————————————————————————

I have talked with [Police} Chief …. and he assured me the matter would be resolved, but that it may take a few days–we’ll see.

———————————————————————————

So get this – one of Desire Meli Kocarslan’s neighbors attends and speaks at the public city council hearing designated to discuss/debate the short term rental policy (Airbnb) issue in late 2015.  After it’s over, Kocarslan (aka Melahat Uzumcu) and her dirty little posse corners this neighbor at his car in parking lot, asking “What’s your problem?” as it relates to his opposition to Airbnb activities in PVE.  You can’t blame the guy for not liking it given the neighborhood’s disturbing, seven-year nightmare experience with 605 Paseo del Mar and its sociopathic owner Kocarslan.  Kocarslan reportedly then yells at the neighbor, idiotically and desperately-trying-to-play-the-victim-card calling him a “racist”.  The neighbor essentially tells her to pack sand up her back side and drives away, presenting her with a clear view of his middle finger.

———————————————————————————

This woman Desire Kocarslan must be the worst neighbor in all of the city, hands down.  It can’t be possible than any other resident in PVE cares less about the people who live around her.  As if her illegal wedding parties waking up and otherwise bothering neighbors weren’t bad enough, as of November 2015 she has a Cujo like dog that ASPCA might love to know she keeps outdoors pretty much 24/7, no matter what the weather may be.  So this mistreated, large dog barks angrily at all times of day and

Click on photo to enlarge this claim to prosperity as "Owner of Chateau del Mar" - really a run-down shanty owned by the bank via mortgage
Click on photo to enlarge this claim to prosperity as “Owner of Chateau del Mar” – really a run-down shanty owned by the bank via mortgage

night.  Since we’ve all heard Kocarslan has the run down house mortgaged to the hilt, you’d hope and think she’d just sell the place and pray there is equity leftover.  I suspect she hangs onto this place as its “owner” (though in reality bank owns it) to create the façade of wealth that seems long ago went out the window with her divorcing husband and her own unemployment.  Pray to God she doesn’t ever move next door to you!


I tried to be nice to Melahat Uzumcu (Desire Kocarslan) as her neighbor.  Though it seems obvious now that she was the root problem in her dissolved marriage, she was still a single mom raising a pair of girls, and I felt sorry for her in a way.  How was I rewarded for this?  I invited her and the kids over when we had a few summer parties; Uzumcu once threatened to sue me well after a party during which she claimed a small piece of a ceramic table had broken off and landed on her daughter’s foot (she never responded to a request for proof of injury).  Then there was the time she asked to borrow my SUV so she supposedly could deliver some clothes/items to a local charity; Uzumcu then proceeded, without my permission or prior knowledge, to drive my car into (uninsured) Mexico, only returning it in the middle of the night after she was halted at the US/Mexican border.  Need I continue?

==================================================

This web page and related posts and commentary represent both publicly available and direct witness/participant facts and personal opinions, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Comments made by third parties, in the Comment Section below or elsewhere, represent commentators’ own representations of facts and own opinions.

Testimonies of House Renters

From Airbnb:  “Unfortunately this home was not what we were expecting for our business travels. Upon arrival, every window was wide open and there were cobwebs and screenless windows, letting insects in. We found out later that night that there was an ant infestation in the kitchen, there was black mold in the garage, and several pieces of furniture were just thrown together to furnish the home. The pictures look much nicer than this home. The neighborhood is not safe, and even though we had paid for a month of this listing, we ended up staying there only one night and forfeiting the rest. We tried resolving this with the host but she wanted us to work through her mom. Terrible resolution, very disappointed with how the host interacted with us and was very accusatory. Worst AirBnB experience ever.”

Rent from Kocarslan/Uzumcu At Your Own Peril: this is how countless “victims” of Kocarslan have felt

Great view. But HARD PASS.

Great view in the back. Not all the heating lamps outside work. The A/C unit broke down at one point (It was repaired). A few of the bathrooms didn’t look or feel clean and a few toilets were not fully functional as indicated by notes next to toilet. A little tacky. Agreed on checkout time prior to checkout then pushed it up day of checkout without notice. Kitchen sink kept getting blocked. Very slow drainage. No cable TV:( We had a good time overall but there were way to many issues small issue and should have never come up in my opinion for the what we were paying. OH and I current have a legal judgement against the host who violated contract and policy and kept my security deposit after checkout. The host also made uncredited and unproven claims of damage to her property as justification. So…I will never be renting from this host again and I would save yourself the potential headache. I know it looks good and tempting for the pictures…but you should PASS.

  • Submitted: Jun 1, 2016
  • Stayed: Dec 2015
  • Source: HomeAway (click here)

amazing view — house not quite like the pictures!

Amazing views but a disappointing house
★  (one star of five)
If you are looking to have one of the most amazing views in California, this house is the place you want to be. The yard offers a beautiful setting and the neighborhood is first class.

Unfortunately, the house is not very well maintained and the time we spent in the house was a disappointment.

The refrigerators were disgusting (and smelly) and left over food and condiments were inside. The kitchen is in badly need of an update. Drawers are old and don’t fit very well. Pots and pans and essentials are old and should be replaced.
Curtains and shades had holes in them and should be replaced.

At least two of the bathroom toilets had signs on them not to flush toilet paper down the toilet – fairly disgusting when using the bathrooms. Very little hot water throughout the house.

All of the TV’s had a smart TV feature but no cable or satellite TV is available – we had to spend half the day at a sports bar on a Saturday to accommodate the 3 college alums who were playing that day – not something we were looking forward to.

The pictures on the website should be updated. Although the views were beautiful, the yard is much different than the pictures portrayed. The decks and hot tub near the bluff were torn out and some support poles were left barely attached to the ground. My daughter almost got hurt by touching a post that fell down within a few feet of her head. Gutters were hanging off the back off the house.

The furniture and fixtures need to be updated. I sat on a chair that broke when I first sat on it. It could not have been the first time this happened. My 27 year old daughter touched a hand rail while walking down the stairs (I witnessed it) and it came off the wall. It was not secured to a stud in the wall. The hot tub was not full and the pool was so cold (in the shade most of the day) it could not be used.

Not disclosed in the ad for the house is a cleaning fee and a deposit (for a 3 day stay) that we have not yet received. Given the condition of the house, I would like to get back at least half of my rental fee.

I use HomeAway to rent our ski house in Colorado and know that you need to fix these things and keep the house in good condition for renters who pay a fee to use your home. At least 3/4 of our renters are repeat guests.

Unbelievable, beautiful views, but if you want to spend time in the house be ready for a home that needs a lot of work!

  • Submitted February 2016
  • Stayed: February 2016
  • Source: HomeAway (click here)

___________________________________________________________________________

Testimony of a 3-day Wedding Party Renter

 “I was searching for an event venue where we could hold a rehearsal dinner evening party close to the wedding location at the Terranea resort, where we had reserved hotel rooms for our overnight stay.  Though we would not have rented the property if not for its primary use as a party venue for 80+ people, we figured we may as well get some use from the house for people to stay overnight as well.  Soon after arrival, however, we discovered that far fewer people could stay there semi-comfortably than we were led to believe (there are only 3 real beds in the house and they are gross so I wouldn’t really want to stay there overnight again).  To be clear, any Motel 6 is even better bed wise.  On Homeway.com, I found 605PdM advertised as “Beautiful Waterfront Chateau,” with the contact person cited as Desire Meli Kocarslan (aka Melahat Uzumcu – I wish I had Googled that name instead!).  The pictures on the site looked luxurious, but only when we finally got into the house months later did we realize how poorly maintained, horribly furnished, and outdated was most of the property.  After calling Desire Meli Kocarslan, she guided me to circumvent Homeaway’s reservation system and work directly with her to avoid paying the website the fee it had earned.  Communications with Kocarslan were odd from the beginning, with wide gaps in response times including a two month gap from the time I sent her my reservation deposit and when she admitted she had received it.  Also, Kocarslan appeared to be avoiding written E-mail documentation, insisting often on phone calls and text.  On the two trips my daughter and I made to Palos Verdes pre-wedding, Kocarslan ignored or rejected my multiple requests to see 605 Paseo del Mar, even though I made clear we just wanted to get a quick glimpse of the layout to help plan the 80-100 person party set for after the Friday night rehearsal.  However, the worst was to come when we finally arrived on the Thursday night of our 3-day, $2,500/day rental period.  Within minutes of our arrival, Kocarslan threw a tantrum essentially over the fact that she wasn’t getting her “normal” $12,000 rental amount for the house being used as a party venue (instead she was getting $7,500).  Upon learning that my sister (present) was a lawyer, she ratcheted up the lunacy and told us to “get out now.”  After hours of this insanity, and due to our being terrified of losing the event venue to which nearly 80 people had been invited months earlier, Kocarslan extorted an extra $3,500 out of me (by converting our damage deposit into a rental payment), taking the total up over $10,000 and closer to her $12,000 target.  After Kocarslan finally left, she made various abrupt attempts to change our new, forced agreement, including changing a 3 p.m. checkout time on Sunday to 10 a.m.  Now let’s discuss the house and backyard.  The house is a disaster – items don’t work all over the place, there are plumbing problems, the sheets didn’t appear to have been cleaned, and it seems very little maintenance is ever done.  The backyard, the key point of our rental as it was for the party, was not as advertised either.  Contrary to a story that Kocarslan told us, the City had forced Kocarslan via years of litigation to remove the two illegally constructed (non-permitted) stone patios depicted on her web photos.  Thus, instead of a spa on a raised, elegant patio to the west and a BBQ area on the patio to the right, there was a little brick and stone sitting area to the west and a sandbox (not exaggerating) to the east (where she also had an irrigation pipe broken an leaking lots of water onto the Cliffside below – and this is during the California drought).  Before Kocarslan left us the last time, she said that if anyone, including the police, should ask who I was, to say I was her friend using the house for the party, and not the truth of my being a commercial customer using her property as a party event venue.  Sure enough, the police showed up as the neighborhood had endured years of Kocarslan illegally renting her residentially zoned property as an event venue, and had had enough already.   In fact, Kocarslan was threatened in 2009 with jail time for her illegal actions on this matter.  Though the police, which was disconcerting at a wedding party to say the least, left us after a few visits, it seems the neighbors didn’t forgive so easily as we found our cars egged in the driveway the morning after the party.  We were so afraid of what Kocarslan might do to our belongings at her house while at the wedding that we hired someone to guard our stuff during that period!  The checkout process was just as horrific as the check in – Kocarslan sent a procession of her people to harass and threaten us to leave earlier than agreed.  Finally, after a hellish 3-day period as a “guest” at 605 Paseo del Mar, we got out.”


The owner is “Meli” although she also goes by Desire.

Chateau del Mar “Guest” Review (BlogSpot, 02/19/2013)

We rented this home for several months and sadly, we feel it was a disappointing experience to say the least.  I normally would not share a negative review but this time, I am making an exception because I would hate for anyone else to be taken advantage of and have to go through what we went through with this particular landlord.

We rented the Chateau del Mar in Palos Verdes, signing a 3 month lease for the summer. By the 2nd month, we already knew we did not want to stay. The landlord, Meli, had proven to be dishonest and quite unstable among other things.  I could write paragraphs about all the bad experiences we had with the Chateau and the landlord, but I will keep it short.

More than once, we were told we needed to vacate so she could sublet the house for 10 days to other people for more money.  The first time, she claimed it was a mistake and that a couple from turkey had booked the chateau before we had signed our lease. She was incredibly sweet, begging us to understand and to help her out. She claimed she had financial issues and really needed the sublet and knowing we would be out of town that week, we reluctantly agreed under pressure.

The following month, she did it again- this time, I said absolutely not, that we would be remaining in the chateau and did not want to leave to let her sublet again. Weeks went by and with a few days notice, she called us and said we had to be out in 3 days because she had gone ahead and signed a contract with a 2nd subletter for 10 days. I was stunned. I told her we had no other accommodations and she said it didn’t matter- she said she had already signed the contract with them and began begging for our understanding and help one minute, and the next she was forceful and demanding, even raising her voice. This went on until I finally realized it was not going to stop and that one way or another, she was going to get her way.  I’m still baffled how this happened.  I had a few days to locate a vacation rental, during a holiday, that cost us a small fortune on top of what our rent was at the chateau.

She later admitted the 1st couple was not booked before our lease but that this was how this was the best way for her to make as much money as she could with the chateau.

At one point we had an intruder in the house and the police that came, told us there were constant issues with this property and that the landlord had a reputation in the area.

Another time, she instructed the maid to throw our supplements out and when confronted, she said the maid had misunderstood her. Over the phone, Meli was sympathetic and INSISTED she be allowed to reimburse us. She asked that we send her an email with the items missing and the costs.  We sent her the email as she requested, telling her “we understand these things happen” and said it was ok if she only reimbursed us for a small part of what was lost.  We were stunned when she replied with a rage-filled, highly offensive response telling us she was not responsible for our things and would never reimburse us for anything. We were dumbfounded. She ASKED us to send her the list and insisted we allow her to reimburse us and then slammed us for doing as she asked.  The clencher though, was that the following month… she did it again! The poor maid apologized, explaining the woman was putting her in a tough position, instructing her to throw our things out AGAIN.  Absolutely shocking.

This is just a few things out of dozens that this woman did. Obviously we decided not to renew our lease when the 3 months was over and by the 2nd month, we were ready to run.  More than 40 days before the end of our lease, we sent an email telling her we would not be renewing and would be vacating by the end of the following month.  We discussed this with her over the phone several times and even discussed the move out dates and details of the move out over the phone. After we moved out, it was about five months before she finally returned one of my MANY phone calls regarding the deposit being returned. When she finally called me back, she said she would not return my deposit, claiming we did not give her enough notice when we moved out. When I reminded her I had the email I had sent her 1.5 month’s before vacating, and that the move out terms had been discussed with a mutual friend as well, she finally said she had just decided she had not charged us enough and would be keeping the deposit. I realized then that the initial “discounted” $15,000 monthly rental rate was just a ploy and she had probably intended to keep the deposit from the beginning to make up the difference. I could easily have won if I had taken her to court but it was not worth my time to go back to california and she knew this. Btw, she did add that she would have returned our deposit had we renewed our lease and stayed longer.

Like I said, I could go on for paragraphs regarding everything that happened during our stay at the chateau del mar, but my goal is not to vent- just share enough of our personal experience to save others from being taken advantage of and having to go through such unnecessary trouble.

Regarding the state of the Chateau del Mar itself…
The house was very outdated, requiring constant repairs she had us managing- arranging repairmen etc several times a week.  Also, the description of the chateau was not exactly accurate. For example, yes there is a jacuzzi tub in the master, but there is not enough hot water to fill it, it is from the 70’s and it’s just a thin, old tub that even looks uncomfortable.  Not all the showers work in the house. The door knobs are broken here and there, the trash compactor and dishwasher hardly work and need replacing. The front gate to the property barely works and often has to be pushed/pulled manually with a great deal of effort. The garage is locked because she keeps her clothes and things in there so she can rent the house out without having to move her things, so note that although the description says there is a 4 car garage, you will not have access to this. The front door does not shut right and if the wind blows, it opens.  At least two of the beds are broken and one is actually on a heavy slant so it’s not possible to sleep in. The pool is always in the shade & covered in leaves so there’s a 95% chance you won’t be using it, etc, etc. etc.

The house has an impressive look from the outside and the ocean view is indeed beautiful, but those are really the highlights of the chateau.  There are plenty of other rental properties in the area that offer the same view for far less money, with better amenities and with honest, professional landlords that use property managers.

Total cost of our summer “vacation” at Chateau del Mar = $56,000 + disappointment.


605 Paseo del Mar Struck by Vandalism (click here; scroll down to Sept. 17)
“Between 6 p.m. Sept. 17 and noon Sept. 19, eggs were thrown on a resident’s vehicle in the 600 block of Paseo Del Mar, causing damage.”

NOTE FROM SITE TO DESIRE MELI KOCARSLAN: All of the information on this site was obtained from public sources (e.g., County and State court and other records) or provided voluntarily to sources of the site by parties mentioned herein (e.g., Natasha Cleveland or other renters of your illegal event venue). Should you have written evidence that any false statement exists on this site, you are encouraged strongly to contact the site immediately. You are encouraged to provide a signed, notarized affidavit exclusively disputing accusations made against you or related parties. Such affidavit then may be made available on this site, allowing the public to consider “your side” of the story.

 

This web page and related posts and commentary represent both publicly available and direct witness/participant facts and personal opinions, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Comments made by third parties, in the Comment Section below or elsewhere, represent commentators’ own representations of facts and own opinions.

Wedding Event Venue Customer Wall of Shame

IF YOU ILLEGALLY RENT 605 PASEO DEL MAR AS A COMMERCIAL (FOR PROFIT TO OWNER) WEDDING OR OTHER EVENT VENUE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL DISCOVER THIS AS YOU ARE SETTING UP FOR THE EVENT, OBTAIN YOUR INFORMATION AND PLACE YOUR NAMES ON THIS WALL OF SHAME.

Natasha Renee Cleveland & Michael Kossman:  this resident bride of Atlanta, GA, working with Wells Fargo, reportedly claimed in her rental agreement signed last minute on 07/17/2015 with Desire 605PdM Kossman Cleveland Wedding 09-2015 - Cropped & AnnotatedMeli Kocarslan (signed 07/28/2015) that the use of 605 Paseo del Mar was for a  small (i.e., 13-person) family gathering.  The truth of the matter is that the property’s primary purpose was to serve as a 09/12/2015 illegal wedding venue with 80-100 guests.  The bride, Ms. Natasha Kossman, had guests as a whole were extraordinarily 605PdM Driveway Girls 09-12-2015 - Cropped & Annotateddisrespectful to the neighbors, including aggressive confrontation toward a neighbor across the street and awakening entire families during the party’s exit process as late as 1:30 a.m.  The noise was so loud that one new set of parents were compelled to move their young baby’s crib entirely away from the illegal Cleveland wedding side of the home and downstairs into a room without a cooling breeze available – all during a heat wave.

Cleveland/Kossman wedding reportedly had 140-160 attendees, 800% of the maximum allowed by PVE law.
Cleveland/Kossman wedding reportedly had 140-160 attendees, 800% of the maximum allowed by PVE law.

This illegal wedding reportedly had 140-160 attendees (fractional photo to left just itself shows nearly 40), 800% of the maximum allowed by PVE law.  Associated parties to the wedding party include Jeffrey Wolff, Leatrice Bynum, Jay Lawson, and Noyaw Swinton of Wells Fargo.

Palos Verdes Estates woman who rented house for weddings cited in tree incident (Daily Breeze, 12/28/2010)

Testimony of a 3-Day Wedding Party Renter (click link or here)

605 Paseo del Mar Struck by Vandalism (click here; scroll down to Sept. 17)
“Between 6 p.m. Sept. 17 and noon Sept. 19, eggs were thrown on a resident’s vehicle in the 600 block of Paseo Del Mar, causing damage.”

Hichem Sandid & Jennifer Phillips:  after a long distance romance for these two nurses, Orange County raised Jennifer Phillips made the decision to rent out Chateau del Mar (605 Paseo del Mar) as a 01/31/2015 illegal wedding venue (click here).  Without any consideration to the neighborhood, Hichem Sandid and Jennifer Phillips directed their

Hichem Sandid & Jennifer Phillips unapologetically gleam ahead of their illegal wedding
Hichem Sandid & Jennifer Phillips unapologetically gleam ahead of their illegal wedding

guests to consume the very limited street parking on adjacent Via Almar, a narrow street terribly equipped to handle this flood of event attendees and their vehicles.  As of 09/2015, public records indicate Hichem Sandid and Jennifer Phillips reside in Los Angeles, CA, both working as perioperative nurses “and have side jobs as well.”

Hichem Sandid and Jennifer Phillips shamelessly advertised their illegal wedding venue on their wedding information page
Hichem Sandid and Jennifer Phillips shamelessly advertised their illegal wedding venue on their wedding information page

Lifestyles of Turkey’s rich and infamous (Asia Times, 05/07/2009)

IF YOU ARE CONTRITE ABOUT YOUR ACTIONS THAT LANDED YOU ON THIS WALL OF SHAME, YOU MAY CONTACT MS. ELLISA HALL, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES, AT (310) 378-0383 (Ext. 2223).  COOPERATION WITH THE CITY MAY LEAD TO YOUR REMOVAL FROM THIS POST.  PARTIES TO A JULY 2015 ILLEGAL WEDDING EVENT ARE NOT ON THIS POST TODAY DUE TO COMPLETE COOPERATION WITH CITY OFFICIALS.

Desire Kocarslan/Melahat Uzumcu Litigation Wall (click here)

Chateau del Mar “Guest” Review (BlogSpot, 02/19/2013)

NOTE FROM SITE TO WALL OF SHAME MEMBERS & DESIRE MELI KOCARSLAN: All of the information on this site was obtained from public sources (e.g., County and State court and other records) or provided voluntarily to sources of the site by parties mentioned herein (e.g., Natasha Cleveland or other renters of your illegal event venue). Should you have written evidence that any false statement exists on this site, you are encouraged strongly to contact the site immediately. You are encouraged to provide a signed, notarized affidavit exclusively disputing accusations made against you or related parties. Such affidavit then may be made available on this site, allowing the public to consider “your side” of the story.

This web page and related posts and commentary represent both publicly available and direct witness/participant facts and personal opinions, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Comments made by third parties, in the Comment Section below or elsewhere, represent commentators’ own representations of facts and own opinions.

Chateau del Mar – 605 Paseo del Mar Deemed Illegal Event Venue

IF YOU ENTER INTO A LEGALLY BINDING RENTAL AGREEMENT, VERBAL OR IN WRITING, TO RENT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE 605 PASEO DEL MAR, PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA  90274, FROM DESIRE KOCARSLAN, RICHARDSON & DIRECTORS, OR ANY RELATED PARTY,  FOR ILLEGAL/NON-PERMITTED USE AS AN EVENT VENUE, YOU SHALL HAVE RELINQUISHED ANY AND ALL OPPORTUNITY TO SALVAGE YOUR WEDDING OR OTHER EVENT FROM STRICT LAW ENFORCEMENT BY THE LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND FULL PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND CITY OF PALOS VERDES ESTATES.

THIS RESIDENCE CANNOT BE RENTED LEGALLY FOR WEDDINGS

“All those persons who allow, assist others to use, and who actually use the above property for any unpermitted use may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, pursuant to PVEMC sections 17.32.050 and 17.32.060.” (click on PVE Legal Notice below).  In addition, PVEMC Section 18.42.030 (E) –  Visitors, customers or deliveries shall not exceed that normally and reasonably occurring for a residence  – shall lead to further prosecution of 605 Paseo del Mar renters using it as an event venue. 

Melahat Uzumcu/Desire Meli Kocarslan has been on legal notice for the majority of a decade
Melahat Uzumcu/Desire Meli Kocarslan has been on legal notice for the majority of a decade; CLICK ON THIS GRAPHIC !!!!
California Superior Court judge Ramona See minced no words in condemning Melihat Kocarslan and Selin Uzumcu in her November 2016 ruling in favor of a permanent injunction

PVEMC §18.04.025 (the “Uzumcu Restriction”)
Prohibits Your Event!

In 2012, in direct response to the prosecution of Melahut Uzumcu for her illegal use of her residentially zoned property at 605 Paseo del Mar for events/weddings, the City of Palos Verdes Estates further defined her past rentals as illegal by passing PVEMC §18.04.025 (the “Uzumcu Restriction”), as follows:

“Any event located on property which includes a single-family dwelling, anticipating or prepared to accommodate more than twenty people, where the property owner or his or her representative advertises, requests, or charges an admission fee, rental fee, or other form of payment for the use of the property or any facilities or residence located on the property shall be prohibited. Any event held in violation of this section is declared to be a public nuisance punishable as a misdemeanor. Any person owning property found to be in violation of this section and any other person found to have paid for, rented, or otherwise occupied such property in violation of this section shall be jointly and severally liable for any and all penalties that may be imposed pursuant to PVEMC 1.16.010 and/or Chapter 8.48 PVEMC. (Ord. 700 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2012)”

605 Paseo del Mar Struck by Vandalism (click here; scroll down to Sept. 17)
“Between 6 p.m. Sept. 17 and noon Sept. 19, eggs were thrown on a resident’s vehicle in the 600 block of Paseo Del Mar, causing damage.”

The City highlighted this restriction in its March 2014 newsletter (click here to Page 4) as follows:

PVE March 2014 Newsletter Code Highlight
CLICK ON THIS GRAPHIC !!!!

Wedding Event Venue Customer Wall of Shame (click link for list of Bluff/Malaga Cove neighborhood molesters such as  Natasha Cleveland of Wells Fargo/Atlanta et. al.)

Desire Meli Kocarslan’s neighbors around 605 Paseo del Mar, Palos Verdes Estates, want to live in peace and harmony alongside her.  For over a decade, this simple goal has proven to be extremely difficult to accomplish.  Over the years, various neighbors have engaged her in acts of friendship and neighborly kindness, only to be Good Year Blimp Horcada Bluff Cove - Annotated & Croppedpunished therefor.  The only goal of this website is to bring peace to our neighborhood by assisting the cessation of illegal rental activity at 605 Paseo del Mar.  Any and all legal, non-event venue rentals not only are unopposed by various neighbors, but in fact we find nearly any other tenant a highly likely improvement over Ms. Kocarslan herself.  Desire Kocarslan’s neighbors wish she would adopt the “core values” of “Integrity”, “Respect” and “Love” espoused by her daughter Selin Uzumcu, Social Media Manager of the Crown Jewel Club in Los Angeles (for Selin Uzumcu LinkedIn page click here).

In September 2009, the State of California sued Melahat Uzumcu (aka Desire Meli Kocarslan) over her illegal rental of her residentially zoned property as a commercial event/wedding venue.   The four count complaint cited violations of the Palos Verdes Estates Municipal Code (Case No. 9SY08502; Judge Hector M. Guzman recused himself from the case and on September 29, 2009  transferred it to Judge Sandra Thompson).  The media picked up stories of the lawsuit, including NBC LA Channel 4 and flyover helicopter coverage by KTLA Channel 7 News (click here and see photo from helicopter below).

A resident faces fines and jail time for renting her house for loud receptions.
A resident faces fines and jail time for renting her house for loud receptions.
PVE Homeowner Charged w Party Palace (Los Angeles Times, 09/30/2009)

Chateau del Mar “Guest” Review (BlogSpot, 02/19/2013)

Declarations in Support of Arrest Warrants for Melahat Uzumcu were attached to the lawsuit.  Indeed, her arraignment was far from Desire Kocarslan’s first time in a courtroom.  In fact, standing in front of a judge has become commonplace for the former Melahat Uzumcu. as only partially chronicled on the Litigation Wall link below:

Desire Kocarslan/Melahat Uzumcu Litigation Wall (click here)

Relating to the “Illegal Wedding House, ” the State prosecuted Melahat Uzumcu (aka Desire Meli Kocarslan) for violations of the following hyperlinked sections of the PVEMC:

  1. § 18.04.010:   Melahat Uzumcu (aka Desire Kocarslan) , in the R-1 single-family residence zone, did cause or permit the 605 Paseo del Mar to be used as an events center, a nonpermitted use.
  2. § 17.32.060:   Melahat Uzumcu (aka Desire Kocarslan)  did maintain a public nuisance by having a building or structure used In a manner contrary to the provisions of Title 17 and/or Title 18 of the Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
  3. § 17.04.040:   Melahat Uzumcu (aka Desire Kocarslan) did  cause a building or land on 605 Paseo del Mar or any portion thereof to be used not in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 and Title 18 of the Palos Verdes Municipal Code
  4. § 5.16.010:   Melahat Uzumcu (aka Desire Kocarslan) did conduct a business within the city, to wit, a commercial events center, without first obtaining and thereafter maintaining a business license pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 5.16, and paying the tax therefor.

Defendant in Palos Verdes Estates Party House Gets Third Delay (Daily Breeze, 12/15/2009)

Palos Verdes Estates Woman Who Held Weddings Fails to Appear(Daily Breeze, 01/13/2010)

NOTE FROM SITE TO DESIRE MELI KOCARSLAN: 

All of the information on this site was obtained from public sources (e.g., County and State court and other records) or provided voluntarily to sources of the site by parties mentioned herein (e.g., Natasha Cleveland or other renters of your illegal event venue). Should you have written evidence that any false statement exists on this site, you are encouraged strongly to contact the site immediately. You are encouraged to provide a signed, notarized affidavit exclusively disputing accusations made against you or related parties.  Such affidavit then may be made available on this site, allowing the public to consider “your side” of the story.

DJ Layla Loxa All Age Limits Event(ful) Ad (08/22/2009)

City Cracks Down on Weddings at Lavish LA Home (NY Times, 09/28/2009)

Sounds Like Trouble in Paradise (NBC LA, 09/28/2009)

Palos Verdes Woman Faces Jail for Renting Out Home (KeepBalling, 09/30/2009)

Owner of PVE Party Home Postpones Plea (InsideSocial/Daily Breeze, 12/29/2009)

Palos Verdes Estates woman who rented house for weddings cited in tree incident (Daily Breeze, 12/28/2010)

Palm Overboard (CurbedLA, 12/29/2010)

This web page and related posts and commentary represent both publicly available and direct witness/participant facts and personal opinions, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Comments made by third parties, in the Comment Section below or elsewhere, represent commentators’ own representations of facts and own opinions.

Desire Kocarslan Litigation Wall

Desire Meli Kocarslan’s neighbors around 605 Paseo del Mar, Palos Verdes Estates want to live in peace and harmony alongside her.  For over a decade, this simple goal has proven to be extremely difficult to accomplish.  Over the years, various neighbors have engaged her in acts of friendship and neighborly kindness, only to be punished therefor.  The only goal of this website is to bring peace to our neighborhood by assisting the cessation of illegal rental activity at 605 Paseo del Mar.  Any and all legal, non-event venue rentals not only are unopposed by various neighbors, but in fact we find nearly any other legal tenant a highly likely improvement over Ms. Kocarslan herself.

Good Year Blimp Horcada Bluff Cove - Annotated & Cropped

California vs. Melahat Uzumcu 2009 Wedding House Lawsuit (click here)

In order to better understand the motivating factors of Desire Kocarslan’s (Melahat Uzumcu’s) aberrant behavior toward her neighbors and various renters of 605 Paseo del Mar, a background legal search was conducted.  The results of this search were staggering in their depth and scope.  Today in 2016, a judge presiding over any prospective litigation by Kocarslan shall have available this history of malicious prosecution, with the attendant risk of enormous damages being awarded to her legal counterparties.

Based on nearly two decades of Desire Kocarslan entering various California courtrooms, it would appear that Kocarslan/Uzumcu a) massively and continually overplays her bad legal “hands” due to overconfidence in her ability to deceive judges and/or b) considers the court system a roulette wheel with associated low (enough) costs worth the spin (especially if she were not to pay her attorneys), even if her case isn’t strong and she is squandering scarce city and state resources in the process.  As taxpayers into this legal system, neighbors of Kocarslan are pleading with her to stop this abuse of the legal system, which already is strained with the weight of bursting-at-the-seams daily dockets and truly dire legal scenarios requiring adjudication.

605 Paseo del Mar Struck by Vandalism (click here; scroll down to Sept. 17)
“Between 6 p.m. Sept. 17 and noon Sept. 19, eggs were thrown on a resident’s vehicle in the 600 block of Paseo Del Mar, causing damage.”

The State of California suing Melahat Uzumcu in 2009 over the “Illegal Wedding House” certainly was not Desire Kocarslan’s first time in a courtroom.  In fact, standing in front of a judge has become commonplace for the former Melahat Uzumcu.  In the search conducted, over 20 lawsuits involving Desire Kocarslan (or her former name Melahat Uzumcu) were found, ranging from her husband filing for a TRO for domestic violence, a TRO for harassment, breach of contract, shoplifting, engaging in fraud to avoid paying legal judgment(s), and a variety of other offenses prosecuted by the State of California, City of Palos Verdes Estates, and private parties.

Defendant in Palos Verdes Estates Party House Gets Third Delay (Daily Breeze, 12/15/2009)

Not depicted below are a variety of near-litigation scenarios wherein parties came close to suing her, including the summer of 2014 when Mark Fowler of Reliant Rehabilitation (https://www.reliant-rehab.com/) threatened to sue for Kocarslan’s alleged refusal to return his purported $20,000 security deposit over allegedly fabricated claims of Fowler’s damage to the house.  In April 2014, prior to the deposit dispute, Mr. Fowler also felt compelled to seek out an air quality consultant due to his being “afraid [he was] going to drop here from hydrogen sulfide poisoning …”

Kocarlan’s litigation wall is quite tall, as partially chronicled below:
  1. Umran Uzumcu v. Melahat Uzumcu:  Desire Kocarslan’s former husband flied for this Temporary Restraining Order (domestic violence) against her in California Superior Court on 02/17/1999 (Case No. BD295528; plaintiff husband represented by J.J. Kayajanian); there can be no surprise that a divorce filing was made in the same courthouse soon thereafter (see Item 2 below);Uzumcu Umran w Mother Undated                                  Umran Uzumcu in a happier moment
  2. Uzumcu v. Uzumcu Dissolution of Marriage:  after just over three years of marriage and two children (1995 and 1997 born), divorce proceedings commenced with a 03/10/1999 filing in the California Superior Court that endured over eight years and five judges, seeing Melahat go through a series of law firms (child custody lawyer Glenn Buzard, D. Amato of Lewis Brisbois, and William Powell) (Case No. BD296901; Judges Ana Maria Luna, Roy Paul, Aviva Bobb, John Sandoz and Ann Jones presiding); interestingly, Chris Fitzpatrick of local Pacific Land Corporation intervened in the case; background of marriage and divorce found at bottom of this post;
  3. Loehmanns Dept. Store Shoplifting:  according to California vs. Melahat Uzumcu et. al., on or about January 4, 2001, she and Zulfiye Bicici unlawfully did steal, take or carry away the personal property of another of value not exceeding $400 (California Penal Code § 494(a)) and unlawfully entered a building, structure Loehmanns Shoplifting Security Cam CBS - Annotatedor locked vehicle (Loehmanns department store) with the intent then and there to commit grand or petty larceny or any felony (California Penal Code § 459); Case No. 1SB00445; shockingly, Uzumcu was defended by onetime PVE Mayor and child molester defender George Bird, fortunately since terminated in that position and sent by Gov. Brown to Torrance Superior Court.
  4. Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu:  in a contract dispute, Desire Kocarslan  sued her husband on 03/01/2002 in the midst of their other divorce litigation in California Superior Court (Case No. BC269207; Judge Helen Bendix again presiding); interestingly, in addition to terminating attorneys Barbara K. Hammers (motioned for relief as Kocarslan’s attorney on 05/22/2003) and Douglas S. Honig, Melahat’s attorney Burton Mark Senkfor later sued Kocarslan (see below);
  5. Umran Uzumcu v. Melahat Uzumcu:  Desire Kocarslan’s former husband filed this collections-related case against her in California Superior Court on 08/21/2002; again, it appears Melahat went through a list of attorneys – John A. Ellis, Douglas Honig and Mark Rademacher (Rubin & Rahe) (Case. No. BC280153; Judge Richard Hubbell presiding); note that Rademacher turned around and sued his (former) client in Item 8 below;
  6. Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu:  making sure that Umran considered marrying Meli perhaps the worst decision of his life, Desire Meli again turned to attorney Douglas Honig (getting rich off this client?) to sue him on August 30, 2002 in California Superior Court in a tort case (Case No. BC280701; Judge Victor Person residing);
  7. Badillo Raymond vs. Melahat Uzumcu:  Desire Kocarslan was sued on 02/21/2003 in California Superior Court in this civil case Badillo Raymond Headshot Undatedby Dr. Raymond Badillo, a board certified anesthesiologist in Manhattan Beach (Case No. YC045943);
  8. Rose & Rademacher vs. Melahat Uzumcu:  In what seems is the start of a trend, Desire Kocarslan was sued on 05/17/2004 in California Superior Court for breach of contract by the divorce
    Rademacher Mark Sitting at Desk - Cropped & Annotatedand child custody law firm Rose & Rademacher’s Mark Rademacher (Case No. BC315661; Judge Mel Red Recana presiding);  see items below for confirmation;
  9. Melahat Uzumcu vs. Orly “the Matchmaker” Hadeda:  Desire Kocarslan, apparently on a seriously expensive hunt for Umran’s replacement, sued “Orly the Matchmaker” of Beverly Hills (click link) for $74,545 on 07/07/2004 and 05/27/2005 (judgement lien) via California Recorders Office and California Secretary of State (Case No. 200400515943 and 057028718644); it would seem that Desire Meli felt the “most famous and successful matchmaker in the world,” and not Meli’s appearance, Orly the Matchmaker Hadeda Undated & Annotatedpersonality, character or background, was responsible for “high end” men not lining up by the dozen for a crack at romance Meli-style; to Kocarslan’s credit, there does seem to be solid justification for this lawsuit based on public information impugning Orly’s performance (click here and here).
  10. McClaran v. J.P. Eliopulos Enterprises:  litigation filed on 06/06/2005 in California Court of Appeals, in which Uzumcu filed a letter on 10-21-2005 (Case No. B183926);
  11. Uzumcu v. Uzumcu et. al.:  The Uzumcu couple started anew on 06/13/2005 in California Court (Case No. B183929; Judge Avivva Bobb presiding again);  on 04/14/2005, the trial court filed its Decision and Judgment in the above 1999 divorce case, which seems to have gone against Melahat as she filed this notice of appeal;
  12. Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu:  The Uzumcu couple faced off in court again after Desire Kocarslan filed this lawsuit on 10/31/2005 in California Court of Appeals, with Melahat representing herself this time against Umran’s John L Dodd of Tustin, CA (Case No. B187085; Judge Avivva Bobb presiding again);
  13. Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu:  Desire Kocarslan teed up Burton Mark Senkfor to sue her (former) husband yet again on 07/30/2007 in California Appeals Court – 2nd District) (Case No. B201008; Judge Avivva Bobb presiding yet again); Chris Fitzpatrick of Pacific Land Corporation shows up here as an intervener (see below); petition for rehearing at California Supreme Court denied on 03/12/2009
  14. Melahat Uzumcu vs. Pacific Land Corporation:  then Pacific Land found itself in appellate court due to Melahat Uzumcu appealing Chris Fitzpatrick’s victory – that case involving Fitzpatrick demanding that Melahat pay brokerage commissions relating to up-the-street Trent Merrill’s $6.8 million offer for 605 Paseo del Mar on 03/01/2005.  That offer led to Melahat’s ill-timed decision to perfect her court-ordered right of first refusal, Fitzpatrick Chris Undated & Annotatedessentially at the very top of the real estate market cycle; it should be noted that Desire Meli Kocarslan attempted to use the fact that she did not sign Fitzpatrick’s listing agreement to her legal benefit during this lawsuit – matching reports we have received of Kocarslan engaging in similar deflection, delay and refusal to sign rental agreement for 605 Paseo del Mar; the appellate judge found various contentions “devoid of merit” during the appeal; decision in favor of Fitzpatrick rendered 02/23/2009;
  15. Protax, LLC vs. Uzumcu:  Desire Kocarslan, along with Umran Uzumcu and Nihat Kocarslan (brother), found themselves being sued in this case filed on 09/01/2009 in California Superior Court/San Diego County (Case No.  37-2009-00097395);
  16. California v. Melahat Uzumcu (the “Wedding House” Lawsuit):  Desire Kocarslan was arraigned on 09/29/2009 for using her home at 605 Paseo del Mar, Palos Verdes Estates, CA  illegally as 605PdM PVE Police 12-27-2010a wedding event venue (Case No. 9SY08502; to view legal complaint click here); the feeble ($500 fine) 2010 plea agreement Kocarslan reached with the State only made inevitable return of “Chateau del Mar” as an illegal event venue, and consequently this entire website;
  17. Desire Meli Kocarslan v. Memet Kocarslan:  now going under her new, Google-search-sanitized name for the first time as a Kocarslan Mehmet On Coast Undated & Annotatedplaintiff, Desire Kocarslan targeted another family member in a motor vehicle case filed by her attorney Roger Jon Diamond on 06/01/2010 in California Superior Court (Case No. BC438774);
  18. Palos Verdes Estates v. Melahat Uzumcu:  Even after just being prosecuted for her Wedding House, Uzumcu was charged only months later in 12/2010 with misdemeanor vandalism and illegal dumping of a City-owned, 25′ tall, 4′ diameter palm tree that was diminishing her view from a 100′ tall cliff on City land alongside her property at 605 Paseo del Mar (click here and here); in rather typical form, Uzumcu reportedly tried to blame her gardener, incredibly asserting that he had cut down the tree without her permission;
  19. Burton Mark Senkfor v. Melahat Uzumcu:   yet another law firm formerly working for Desire Kocarslan, the Law Office of Burton Mark Senkfor, now found itself suing her on 06/20/2011 Senkfor Burton Headshot - Annotatedin California Superior Court (Case No. SC113086); the judge awarded Senkor a judgment for $61,537.45 on 12/20/2012, as seen from the June 2016 title report excerpt below.  Could it be that she has built a tendency not to pay her legal bills?605PdM Senkfor Judgment in Title Report 06-2016
  20. Desire Meli Kocarslan v. Ginette Marie Pilote aka Boruch Isre:  Desire/Meli/whatever had a busy month of March it seems, with this harassment case filed on 03/19/2012 in California Superior Court (Case No. YS023596); It is our understanding that Kocarslan did not prevail in achieving her goals.
  21. Shepherd Clark v. Melahat Uzurricu:  Only a few weeks after Clark did Kocarslan a favor by speaking on her behalf regarding Kocarslan’s illegal cliffside decks (see Page 5 of http://www.pvestates.org/home/showdocument?id=1098), Clark went to court for a restraining/injunctive order for civil harassment vs. Kocarslan on 03/23/2012 in California Superior Court (Case No. YS023605;click here); this appears to be a countersuit to Desire M. Kocarslan v. Shepard Clark filed 03/15/2012 in the California Superior Court (Case No. YS023590) ;
  22. Kocarslan v. City of Palos Verdes Estates:   The site believes this case is particularly illustrative of Desire Kocarslan’s approach to laws in general (i.e., they don’t apply to her) and the legal system intended to enforce them (to be abused vs. used).  Melahat Uzumcu squandered no small amount of her and the City’s resources trying to get after-the-fact approval for her non-permitted, 2006-constructed, illegal rear yard decks.  After getting caught by City Public Works Director Allan Rigg in 07/2010, and then after ignoring the City for 15 months receiving yet another City letter ordering removal or permit, Kocarslan’s permit was denied by the Planning Commission (click for Page 3 here for 01/17/2012 City 5-0 vote against Kocarslan – concluding that the decks were “visually intrusive” and did not meet the requirements set forth in the municipal code or the
    California Coastal Act).  Never one to hesitate wasting scarce court and City resources, Kocarslan and her representative Roger Arroyo then appealed to the City Council, but lost again on 03/13/2012 (even though Kocarslan blamed her deck contractor who she claimed had not told her she needed permits.)  Kocarslan then hired lawyer Laleh Ensafi to file a lawsuit on 04/09/2012 (Case No. B253026; Judges Luis Lavin and Barbara Meiers presiding), but lost again when the trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate (“based on common sense and … required permits before they were constructed”), thereby ordering Kocarslan to remove the decks within 30 days; after nearly five 605PdM Illegal Decks - Annotatedyears of City code enforcement efforts, litigation and appeals, on 03/11/2015 Kocarslan’s crusade met its final demise when Judges Zelon, Perluss and Feuer of the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision; Kocarslan was 605PdM Backyard East Sandbox 07-26-2015forced to reverse her illegal activities by removing the structures in mid-2015, though she still advertises her property with photos depicting the now-removed decks (click here);
  23. Law Offices of Ramin Azadegan v. Uzumcu:  yet another law firm sued Desire Kocarslan, Melahat Uzumcu and Richardson & Directors Associates LLC in California Superior Court on 07/03/2014; oddly, suing plaintiff believed that Desire Kocarslan and Melahat Uzumcu were “sisters” rather than one-and-the-same; Azadegan sued “the sisters” due to his 12/15/2009 lawsuit Azadegan Ramin Arms Crossed CIrcle - Annotatedagainst Uzumcu (Case Nos. 09C04911 and 09CB4911)  for breach of contract; the judge awarded Azadegan a judgment for $34,380.36 on 08/12/2011, as seen from the June 2016 title report excerpt below.  Could it be that she has built a tendency not to pay her legal bills?
    605PdM Azadegan Judgment in Title Report 06-2016
    Azadegan later claimed that Uzumcu in 2010 transferred the deed to 605 Paseo del Mar to her “sister” Kocarslan as a fraudulent conveyance to “deceive and avoid” the creditors to whom she owed $34,380.36 judgment from the 2009 case; (Case No. BC550337; Judge Holly E. Kendig presiding);
  24. Asli Uzumcu v. Thomas Anastassiou & James Anastassiou:  In late 10/2015, after catching wind of the community joining again to compel the City to prosecute Desire Kocarslan for the illegal commercial use of 605 Paseo del Mar for wedding and other events (see Item 25 below), it seems Kocarslan used her daughter Asli Uzumcu  as legal bait in the court system, yet again.  Appallingly, Kocarslan guided her then-18 year old daughter to file a Uzumcu Asli & Kocarslan Desire Art Gallery 09-02-2013 - Annotatedpetition in the California Superior Court making claims of needing a restraining order against the Anastassiou brothers.  Claims made by Uzumcu includes that one or both of the never-married James and/or Thomas Anastassiou were staring out their window (lewdly?) at the young scantily-clad-at-times (see photo) girl.  The judge, reportedly after threatening to throw mother Kocarslan out of the courtroom for coaching her daughter’s answers to the judge’s questions, saw through the charade and dismissed the petition.  From the looks of things both in and out of the courtoom, seems we have a “like mother, like daughter” nightmare in the making.  One has to feel sorry for these two girls being raised under the influence of this horrible woman.
  25. City of Palos Verdes Estates v. Desire Kocarslan/Melahat Uzumcu /Selin Uzumcu (the 2nd “Wedding House” Lawsuit):  After incontrovertible evidence accumulated that Desire Kocarslan yet again was determined to break the law by continuing to rent illegally her residence as a commercial event venue, she and co-defendant/daughter Selin Uzumcu defended themselves unsuccessfully at a hearing held on 03/02/2016 before California Superior Court Judge Ramona See (Case No. Uzumcu Selin Lawn Cell Phone Wide Stance 06-08-2016 - Annotated2YC071142); Judge See signed the preliminary injunction enjoining/restraining Desire Kocarslan/Selin Uzumcu from renting 605PdM “for the purposes of hosting a commercial event for > 20 persons in violation of the PVEMC” on 04/26/2016.  On November 18, 2016, after hearing evidence during the trial, Judge See ruled in favor of a permanent injunction (see below) against Kocarslan and Uzumcu.
    California Superior Court judge Ramona See minced no words in condemning Melihat Kocarslan and Selin Uzumcu in her November 2016 ruling in favor of a permanent injunction

    605PdM PVE Police 12-27-2010

PVE Homeowner Facing Jail for Wedding Rentals (Daily Breeze, 09/28/2009)

Palos Verdes Estates woman who rented house for weddings cited in tree incident (Daily Breeze, 12/28/2010)

Lifestyles of Turkey’s rich and infamous (Asia Times, 05/07/2009)

 

Background Divorce Information

Source:  Judge Zelon P.J. Perluss 12/17/2007 Appeals Decision, in California Court of Appeals, relating to Melahat Uzumcu’s failed 06/2005 appeal of judgment by California Superior Court Judges Avivva Bobb and Gary Klausner:

“Husband and wife initially met in Turkey in the year 1988. A fair and reasonable inference from the record on appeal would cast husband in the position of being quite wealthy and wife in the circumstances of having far less material wealth. Husband’’s father had been in the cable manufacturing business and died in the year 1990. Following the demise of his father, husband inherited an interest in the cable company which was sold to a French company in 1993. The amount realized from the sale was a matter of contention at the time of trial with wife testifying that husband told her the company had been sold for $40 million dollars, which husband denied, and indicated the company had been sold for $13 to $14 million dollars.

Laying aside the question as to the sale price of the company for the time being, this court focuses on the paramount question presented by this appeal, namely, wife’’s contention that substantial evidence was lacking for the trial court’’s determination awarding and confirming certain personal property to husband as his sole and separate property. Wife contends evidence to the contrary indicates that the husband had made gifts of certain personal property to her and the personal property under review by the trial court compelled a decision that the property was hers alone as gifts based on husband’’s donative intent, accompanied by delivery. For the most part, husband’’s contention on appeal is just [*2] the reverse of wife’’s contention, namely substantial evidence supports the award of certain items to him, but substantial evidence is lacking on those items awarded to wife as gifts by him to her.

Because donative intent is fraught with subjective considerations and quite frequently not documented in writing within an emotional relationship such as husband and wife, this court finds it advantageous, if not an outright necessity, to recite the extensive background and relevant life experiences of the parties, as presented by the record in this case or reasonable inferences therefrom.

In 1993, wife participated in the selection and purchase by husband of a residence in Rancho Palos Verdes, valued at $4.2 million dollars as of April 13, 1999. Commencing in 1994, wife participated in the selection and purchase by husband of various and sundry personal property items which form the vortex of the major contentions of the parties on appeal. The items referred to are generally described as jewelry, paintings, furniture, antiques and “”objects d’’art”” being so labeled by wife in her appellant’’s opening brief. The general procedures used by husband and wife to locate and acquire these personal properties involved looking at auction catalogues, attending auctions, visiting art stores, galleries, and dealerships. At wife’’s “”behest””, as stated in her opening brief, husband would then purchase expensive women’’s jewelry and artwork.

According to wife, from 1993-1999, she resided with husband in the residence in Palos Verdes, as well as in luxurious homes in exclusive neighborhoods in Istanbul, Turkey, which wife maintains were filled with expensive artwork, furniture, and antiques purchased from art and antique galleries, dealerships, jewelry brokers, and auctions that husband and wife attended together while traveling between their homes and to New York and Europe. The homes had servants, including housekeepers, cooks, gardeners and nannies.

As further background information, husband and wife are from different religious groups. Wife is from the Alevi sect, but husband is Sunni. According to wife as stated in her appellant’’s opening brief, under Turkish tradition and custom an Alevi woman who married a Sunni would be marginalized from her family and would lose her family’’s financial protection. For this reason, wife was reluctant to marry husband.

Wife gives further insight into Turkish tradition and society by stating in her opening brief that there is a strong tradition of the groom giving pre-marital gifts of gold and jewelry to the bride herself, which is known as “”bride wealth,”” with the amount given increasing with the wealth of the groom. Wife maintains that “”bride wealth”” is a sign of status for the groom’’s family also because the bride is given wealth commensurate with the groom’’s social and economic standing.

In 1994, husband and wife were living together but not actually married. Wife became pregnant and their daughter, S., was born in August 1995. Marriage was then discussed as a more urgent topic. Wife asserts [*3] that husband told her that she already had more security than any other woman her age because of the jewelry and other items husband had given her, and that he had given her far more than her family could have ever afforded to give her. On December 22, 1995, husband and wife were married and a second daughter, A., was born in April 1997.

Numerous items of expensive jewelry were purchased by husband during the years from 1994 to 1998, prior to their separation in 1999, which wife contends were gifts to her by husband. Husband counters wife’’s claim by contending that the jewelry was his separate property and that the wife never even wore any of the jewelry.

Trial court findings on claims to personal property items.

As accurately summarized in wife’’s brief on appeal, the trial court found the following personal property items to be gifts to wife, giving description, date of acquisition and estimated value:

“”1. 7.14 carat diamond ring, purchased on September 14, 1994 for $288,400;

“”2. Pearl and diamond earclips and matching ring, purchased on October 17, 1994 for $12,650;

“”3. Black pearl and diamond earclips and matching ring, purchased on October 17, 1994 for $21,850;

“”4. Black pearl necklace, purchased on October 19, 2004 for $68,500;

“”5. Pearl necklace, purchased on October 19, 1994 for $32,200;

“”6. Sapphire and diamond ring, purchased on October 19, 1994 for $90,500;

“”7. 8.69 carat intense yellow diamond ring, purchased on December 6, 1994 for $147,000;

“”8. Sapphire bracelet, purchased on December 7, 1994 for $51,750;

“”9. Diamond bracelet, purchased on December 7, 1994 for $40,250;

“”10. Intense yellow diamond earrings, purchased in October 1995 for $70,000;

“”11. Piaget watch, purchased on November 2, 1995 for $6,900;

“”12. Antique emerald and diamond brooch, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 167,700 Swiss francs;

“”13. Ruby and diamond necklace, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 120,000 Swiss francs;

“”14. Emerald and diamond ring, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 220,000 Swiss francs;

“”15. Pearl necklace, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 170,000 Swiss francs;

“”16. Gold and diamond Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry suite, purchased on December 4, 1995 for $24,150;

“”17. Sapphire and diamond Harry Winston earclips, purchased on December 4, 1995 for $23,000;

“”18. Diamond ‘’wedding’’ ring, purchased after the marriage for approximately $5,000-$6,000; and

“”19. Diamond Van Cleef & Arpels bracelet, purchased on October 21, 1996 for $134,500.””

Again, as accurately summarized in wife’’s brief on appeal, the trial court found the following personal property items were not gifts to wife and constituted the property of husband as his sole and separate property and likewise gave a description, date of acquisition and estimated value:

“”1. Emerald ring, purchased October 24, 1995 for $101,500;

“”2. 17.5 carat diamond ring (Melahat’’s actual intended wedding ring), purchased on October 25, 1995 for $657,500;

“”3. Ruby and diamond LaCloche bracelet, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 132,000 Swiss francs;

“”4. Gold necklace, purchased on November 21, 1995 for $2,500;

“”5. Gold jewelry suite, purchased on November 21, 1995 for $5,500;

“”6. Diamond and emerald earclips, purchased on December [*4] 7, 1995 for 17,000 pounds sterling;

“”7. Antique emerald Cartier cufflinks (to be made into earrings to match an emerald ring purchased), purchased on December 4, 1995 for $63,000;

“”8. Emerald and diamond Van Cleef & Arpels ring, purchased on December 7, 1995 for 17,000 pounds sterling;

“”9. Sapphire and diamond ring, purchased on December 7, 1995 for 33,000 pounds sterling;

“”10. Diamond and ruby choker [and earrings], purchased on November 20, 1996 for 66,700 Swiss francs;

“”11. Diamond necklace, purchased on February 18, 1998 for 16,000 Swiss francs;

“”12. Antique emerald and diamond necklace, purchased on February 18, 1998 for 75,000 Swiss francs; and

“”13. 10 carat sapphire stone, purchased on February 18, 1998 for $100,000.””

Other personal property items in contention.

Wife claims that numerous paintings were also purchased by husband during this time period. Three of the paintings were claimed by wife to be gifts to her. Wife contends that one of the three was sold in an effort to get husband to pay child support obligations which wife claims husband never did. Two of the paintings described as “”A View of Constantinople/Istanbul and the Bosphourus”” by Ivan Aivozovsky and “”In the Harem”” by Rudolf Ernst were awarded to husband. Wife contends the trial court erroneously based its ruling on lack of donative intent and delivery inasmuch as the evidence showed the paintings were on display in the residence and the fact that the display was in the “”common”” areas should not serve to nullify these items as gifts to her.

Contentions on appeal.

Wife’’s contention on appeal is summarized as one which attacks the findings of the trial court awarding personal property to husband which she claims were gifts to her. Wife maintains the trial court lacked a legal basis to make such findings as demonstrated by the colloquy between the court and counsel during trial in which the court sought “”corroborating evidence from wife to establish the gifts of jewelry to her.”” She states in her opening brief “”That the trial court repeatedly [and] erroneously found that there was insufficient evidence of delivery of particular items of jewelry to [wife], when there was sufficient evidence of such delivery but it was not independently corroborated, and the rule with respect to delivery of gifts is not strictly applied to gifts within a family (particularly as between husband and wife).”” To accentuate wife’’s claim of error by the trial court in requiring corroborative testimony, wife sets forth in her brief on appeal an excerpt from the record which she describes as “”just a few of the many excerpts”” as follows:

“”‘’THE COURT: Obviously, you can tell what I am looking for which is ––

“”‘'[Husband’’s Counsel]: Third party corroboration compared to the list and compared to anything else.

“”‘’THE COURT: Which is evidence before the Court that would fulfill the elements to meet your burden of proof other than by your witness’’ –– by your client’’s testimony.

“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: I understand that’’s the Court inquiry and will endeavor to do that but I would hope that the Court recognizes although it does have a dilemma, that my [*5] client’’s testimony alone is sufficient to meet the burden if the Court finds it to be credible.

“”‘’THE COURT: I understand the law in that respect.’’””

“”‘’THE COURT: Can you tell me as to which of these items there is testimony about it –– can in your client’’s position other than from possession –– other than testimony –– other than your client’’s testimony about these items being in her possession?

“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: There is testimony –– well, I can pull it out and detail it for you.

“”‘’THE COURT: Well, you could just refer to it, but it would be of assistance –– we had the advantage with respect to the Palos Verdes home of having, in my view, an independent witness. And I am looking for –– I don’’t know how independent the other witnesses are, but to the extent there are at least other witnesses, there are some items as to which we have testimony from other witnesses and some items as to which we have no testimony from other witnesses.’’””

“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: Your Honor, following up on the question of the Court, I would point out that although many of the pieces have been particularly described as having been in the possession of Mrs. Uzumcu by the various witnesses, not all of them have been covered. But I urge the Court that the testimony of Mr. Uzumcu was that none of these things with the exception of a pair of earrings were ever in her possession. And I have now given to the Court 14 or 15 pieces that were identified as being in her possession or a photograph of her wearing those things and there is testimony that there was other jewelry. [¶¶] . . . So what we are probably talking about is well in excess of the majority of these pieces have been seen in the possession of Mrs. Uzumcu by independent witnesses who I think a fair assessment of their independence is that these people were friends of both parties. [¶¶] And independence –– they absolutely contradict the vehement denial by Mr. Uzumcu that this jewelry was ever in the possession of Mrs. Uzumcu. And I hope that her inability to produce a photograph because Mr. Uzumcu has got all the photographs of her wearing some of these other pieces or to produce that particular witness from Istanbul or elsewhere that saw her wearing one of these pieces is not going to significantly impact the Court’’s decision as to whether or not these items were a gift to her. . . . [¶¶] So I would certainly hope the Court wouldn’’t penalize Mrs. Uzumcu because she is unable to bring forward a witness seeing her wear every single piece of this jewelry, because she can’’t remember what all of her friends have seen. But I don’’t think it is fair to her to say, “”if no one saw you wear, it doesn’’t belong to you,”” given that Mr. Uzumcu’’s testimony about the reason for the purchase is so inherently unbelievable.’’””

“”‘’THE COURT: That’’s what I was asking counsel to try to see how to put List Three together with what there is independent corroboration of.’’””

“”‘’THE COURT: . . . Excuse me. I would like to hear specifically on 514(2), is there are (sic) corroborating testimony? . . . .

“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: When you say “”corroborating”” you mean other than Mrs. Uzumcu?

“”‘’THE COURT: Correct.’’””

Husband’’s response to wife’’s contention is essentially the reverse mirror [*6] image of wife’’s contention in that he maintains substantial evidence supports the findings of the trial court inasmuch as those findings award personal property to him as his sole and separate property, but attacks the findings of the trial court as lacking substantial evidence where items of personal property were awarded to wife as her sole and separate property as constituting gifts by him to her, in the face of lack of donative intent and/or delivery. In addition to the issues above mentioned, husband raises other issues in his cross-appeal. We do not reach the claims of Husband in his cross-appeal in view of the untimely filing of the cross-appeal thereby depriving this court of jurisdiction to hear Husband’’s claims, as more particularly discussed hereafter.2

NOTE FROM SITE TO DESIRE MELI KOCARSLAN: All of the information on this site was obtained from public sources (e.g., County and State court and other records) or provided voluntarily to sources of the site by parties mentioned herein (e.g., Natasha Cleveland or other renters of your illegal event venue). Should you have written evidence that any false statement exists on this site, you are encouraged strongly to contact the site immediately. You are encouraged to provide a signed, notarized affidavit exclusively disputing accusations made against you or related parties. Such affidavit then may be made available on this site, allowing the public to consider “your side” of the story.

 

This web page and related posts and commentary represent both publicly available and direct witness/participant facts and personal opinions, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Comments made by third parties, in the Comment Section below or elsewhere, represent commentators’ own representations of facts and own opinions.