Owners of $7 million ‘hostage’ home dealt fresh blow

The owners of a multimillion-dollar “dream home” they claim has held their family “hostage” have been dealt a fresh, costly blow.

Katelin Holloway and Ben Ramirez bought the four-level San Francisco home in 2021, believing they had found a rare, family-sized property.

It didn’t take long for the purchase to turn into a costly planning nightmare.

The couple paid US$4.86 million ($6,918,550) for the Vallejo Street residence, which had been marketed as a sprawling single-family home with enough space for their two sons and for them to work remotely.

An anonymous complaint later triggered a city inspection, uncovering a problem that has continued to grow.

San Francisco planning officials say the house was once a multi-unit building and remains recorded as such in city records. Consequently, the family could be legally required to restore the entire structure to its former multi-apartment configuration, despite the building having been sold, financed and occupied as a single-family residence for years.

Holloway previously described the property as their “beautiful house that held us hostage” to the San Francisco Chronicle.

“We are the numbnuts who signed a four-unit building,” Holloway said.

Now, the couple says their latest attempt to resolve the dispute has been rejected.

In an update published on their website, Holloway and Ramirez said the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted on April 7 to deny their Conditional Use Authorisation, which would have allowed them to legalise and keep the home’s current configuration.

The board voted 10-0 against the proposal, according to the couple.

However, they claim the board then deadlocked at 5-5 when asked to formally adopt written findings explaining the decision, meaning no written explanation was recorded.

“The Board refused our proposal without producing a legally required rationale for doing so,” the couple wrote.

The pair maintains the city’s own records contain contradictions about whether the property was legally a two-unit, four-unit or single-family residence.

According to their account, the building dates back to 1907 and was originally constructed as a two-unit property before informal units were added decades later.

City officials, however, have treated the property as a building where units were unlawfully removed in an area where homes are already in undersupply.

If the family is forced to restore the property to a multi-unit configuration, it could involve major demolition and reconstruction, including installing additional kitchens and separating rooms that currently form part of their family home.

The couple has argued doing so would not bring in additional tenants, but could instead displace their own family.

“We are continuing to fight for our home,” the couple said in their latest website update.

“We are actively exploring every available path to protect our home and correct a record that the City’s own documents contradict at every turn.”