Mark Adams

President

 
Receiver Mark Adams, President of California Receivership Group

Mark pioneered the use of the health and safety receivership remedy in California over the last 20 years and remains the most experienced health and safety receiver working in the state. He has been appointed as receiver by 136 different judges (state and federal) to rehabilitate over 250 properties in 34 counties and 112 different cities. Mark has mentored or trained most of the other health and safety receivers operating in California. Mark is a sought-after speaker at state and national housing conferences. He submitted an amicus curiae brief in the California Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in support of the health and safety receivership remedy, City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez 43 Cal. 4th 905 (2008).

Mark is a magna cum laude graduate of Loyola Marymount University and of Georgetown University Law Center. He has worked in real estate finance most of his 35-year career-in the private sector (Callie Mae from 1983 to 1988 and Fannie Mae from 1992-1996) as well as the public sector (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 1978-1982). He served on and was a driving force behind, Mayor Riordan’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Slum Housing from 1998-2000. He innovated the funding of super-priority receivership certificates and, over the last 20 years, has funded over $44 million in health and safety receivership financings.

Learn more about Mark on his blog: receivermarkadams.com
Mark’s longer bio: receivers.org/bios/adams

Representative Cases:

  • County of Sonoma v. U.S. Bank N.A. as Trustee, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---, A155837, A15724, 2020 WL 5949655, 10/8/2020, Cal.App. 1 Dist.

  • City of Chula Vista v. Gutierrez (2012) 207 CaL.App. 4th 681

  • City of Whittier v. Southland Display Company (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2015, No. B250819) 2015 WL 800059, as modified on denial of reh'g (Mar. 16, 2015) (unpublished)

  • City of Dana Point v. Finnegan (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 22, 2019, No. G055124) 2019 WL 1303854 (unpublished)

  • City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 913 (amicus brief)

  • County of Mariposa v. JDC Land Company, LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 25, 2020, No. F076310) 2020 WL 5015561, at *1, review filed (Oct. 2, 2020) (unpublished)

  • People ex rel. Lindgren v. McGuire (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 6, 2019, No. C086213) 2019 WL 4233144 (unpublished)

  • City of Stockton v. Singh (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2019, No. C084142) 2019 WL 1593635, review denied (June 26, 2019) (unpublished)

  • Kaura v. Stabilis Fund II, LLC (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 420, 424 

  • City of Crescent City v. Reddy (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 458, 462 

  • City of Dana Point v. Finnegan (Cal. Ct. App., June 13, 2016, No. G051155) 2016 WL 3398050 (unpublished)

  • City of Ridgrest v. Howard (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2015, No. F068679) 2015 WL 1014322 (unpublished)

  • Rost v. City of Whittier (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 19, 2011, No. B229230) 2011 WL 6318515 (unpublished)

The scene of homicides and illicit drug deals, Receiver Mark Adams and California Receivership Group were appointed to remedy the nuisance conditions at this commercial property. Learn how a health and safety receivership turned this property around, from a place that was dangerous to a needed source of groceries for community members who don't have easy access to a car.