A Santa Barbara jury awarded Mark Melchiori of Melchiori Construction $5.8 million in the fraud case embroiling Chapala One, the condo complex at Chapala and Gutierrez streets that wound up sparking Santa Barbara's recent battle over building heights. Melchiori said he was ripped off by developer Don Hughes, who got millions of dollars behind on payments after making thousands of last-minute design changes. He testified Hughes kept him working, knowing that he didn't have the funds to pay for the work.
Hughes countered that Melchiori failed to live up to the terms of his contract by refusing to provide key financial data and by stiffing many subcontractors. He said Melchiori hit him late with staggering bills, the last two invoices totaling more than $4 million. Construction on Chapala One concluded late in 2008 after the recession was well under way. None of the condos have been sold.
Related Links
- Don Hughes’s Nightmare House [ March 10, 2011 ]
Previous Month
Comments
What a pathetic article! There has got to be better journalists out there.
Sam11 (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2011 at 3:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Check out Noozhawk...better reporting.
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/_melc...
Sam11 (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2011 at 3:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Collecting will be a lot easier said than done. Does this mean the condos will be put back on the market soon at market prices?
Lars (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2011 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam11's comments are pretty pathetic, looks like he's just a booster for another news-site or a stooge for Melchiori.
EZK (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2011 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it's destine to be an affordable housing project
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2011 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I mean for Hughes.
EZK (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2011 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lars (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2011 at 9:43 p.m.
Really well done, Sam11. Your link leads to an article about Das Williams. You might even call that pathetic.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2011 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SezMe, you give me faith that the public at large is still curious and discerning. Thanks for the heads up on the revolving link. In case you couldn't find the article, here is another shot at a link: http://www.noozhawk.com/article/05111...
EZK, I less hope for your unwillingness to open your mind. Keep drinking the Independent Kool-aid and refrain from critical thought...just like what we learned in school "Keep It Simple Stupid." Just label away...it is a great substitute for thought.
I happened to sit in on the hearing, call it civic curiosity (two community power houses going head to head), and heard the jury's unanimous rejection of everyone of Hughes' accusations and its 11-1 vote to award on all 15 counts of Hughe's fraud, breach of contract, etc... These facts are the essence of the story. It appears that by omitting those facts, the Independent wants to paint its own story. This may be great for a gaggle of groupies, but it is not journalism.
Sam11 (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2011 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There was a reason they phrased the lesson that way to you SezMe.
EZK (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2011 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)