Sandra Hutchens’ Foreclosure Secret
April 2, 2010 by OCCCWS Editor
OCCCWS has learned that Sandra Hutchens and her former husband were sued for more than $800,000 after defaulting on a rental property in 1992. The complaint obtained by OCCCWS (see below for attached documents) alleges that Sandra Anderson, as she was then known, and her then husband continued to collect rents from the sixteen unit apartment complex even after they stopped making required mortgage payments, leading Fidelity Federal Bank to seek the appointment of a receiver by the court to manage the property until it could be sold at foreclosure.
To quote documents filed by the plaintiff: “The defendants have apparently diverted and kept for their own personal use the Bank’s collateral (rental income) for the last two months totaling approximately $13,696.34 in the aggregate.” The court subsequently appointed a receiver to take over the property. A year after filing suit, the Bank requested the action be dismissed without prejudice since it had foreclosed on the property and taken possession itself.
This property is the same one on which more than $36,000 in tax liens were filed against Sandra Hutchens and her former husband, a story that OCCCWS recently reported, making it the property that Sheriff Hutchens’ campaign consultant, Dave Gilliard, said had been ‘disposed of’. Apparently failing to make required payments and having your property taken by foreclosure counts as ‘disposed of’ in Sandra Hutchens’ world. Interestingly, Sandra Hutchens claimed she had no knowledge of the liens, but was a named party in the lawsuit. Documents also show that, despite repeated attempts to be served a summons, she did not appear in court to respond to the complaint.
This new information only adds to the already troubling questions regarding Sandra Hutchens’ fitness to lead the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and her ability to manage an $800 million budget. That she walked away from financial obligations which she willingly accepted, and has not informed the voters she asks to elect her of the same, raises legitimate questions about her integrity, as well as the process used by the Board of Supervisors to select her.