Document showing Jovita Mendoza and her husband Michael Kleeman did not repay almost $378,000 through Chapter 13 bankruptcy finalized on Sept. 11, 2017.
Attacks other candidates for receiving campaign contributions, believes all candidates should self-fund
Jovita Mendoza. From her Facebook page.
By Allen Payton
Candidate for Brentwood City Council in District 1, Jovita Mendoza, has been boasting that she has been self-funding her campaign and attacking others in both her and two other races for city council and mayor for accepting contributions. However, in 2012 she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy which on Sept. 11, 2017 ended with Mendoza not repaying almost $378,000 of the debt.
In addition, in a letter to the editor published on this website, yesterday, the writer provided proof that Mendoza and her husband also had a judgment against them and their roofing company, at the time, from Ford Commercial Credit, Inc. of San Jose for over $100,000 in 2007, before the economic downturn occurred in 2008. The writer wrote self-funding her campaign is “easy to do and say when you don’t pay your bills and you’re spending your creditor’s money.”
According to the U.S. Courts website, “A chapter 13 bankruptcy is also called a wage earner’s plan. It enables individuals with regular income to develop a plan to repay all or part of their debts. Under this chapter, debtors propose a repayment plan to make installments to creditors over three to five years.” (See post of letter)
Document filed on Dec. 11, 2017 showing Jovita Mendoza and husband Michael Kleeman’s list of Scheduled Creditors with total debt in claim of $416,633.55 and amount repaid of $81,485.99.
Another document shows a list of creditors with a total of $416,633.55 in debt and total payments of $81,485.99. But that latter amount and the amount discharged of $377,964.93 is greater than the $416,633.55.
An email with the documentation and the following questions was sent to Mendoza at 8:11 a.m. Friday, with a deadline of noon for her to respond:
“How much was the original amount included in your bankruptcy filing? The total from the list of creditors was $416,633.55. But the $378K and $81K add up to more than that.
Have you paid back any of your creditors included in these documents other than the $81,485.99? If not, don’t you think it’s wrong to be paying out-of-pocket for your own campaign expenses instead of paying back at least some of those creditors with those funds?
Someone named Brian commented on the post of Ms. Hauck’s letter on the Contra Costa Herald that ‘Those bills have been paid years ago and Jovita is self funded.’
If that’s true and you have paid any or all of your creditors back, please provide proof, your answers and any other comments you would like to make by 12:00 pm, today.”
However, Mendoza did not respond by publication time of 12:55 p.m. Please check back later for any responses from her and any other updates to this report.
Not sure who this writer is, but they were not sounding very fair-minded. The subject matter is very important and it seems if an individual such as Mendoza is handing out financial advice, then it would be nice to understand that advice in light of a past bankruptcy. I would think a true journalist would like to get to the real story before biasing the audience to the subject matter.
It is a very considerate action to invite a reply before sending an article to press, but the tone of this author’s voice makes it seem more like a shakedown. I personally do not vote and thus do not follow politics in general. However, due to the fact I interact with city and county officials, I do try to keep up to date on who I might have to interact with very soon. I like to see articles that reflect the pro and cons of each individual and not articles like this that seem to be on the hunt create sensationalized news.
I would think a journalist would realize you do your job correctly regardless of the political, timeline. With the correct mindset, you might actually find the information you were looking for, and we as the audience might benefit from sage advice that Ms. Mendoza might have gained by going thru the bankruptcy (or counter point learned that they didn’t learn much from the experience).
Non-voting resident,
Thank you for reading the Herald, taking the time to comment and attempting to hold us accountable in the work we do.
But, how is reporting factual information about a candidate for public office and giving them the opportunity to respond biased?
Ms. Mendoza still has the opportunity to respond and provide any other information but has so far chosen not to. Instead, she had her attorney respond later on the day of publication, not to this article, but to a letter to the editor published the day before about her finances, with a baseless threat to sue us which will go nowhere in court, as one, the letter writer asked questions about Ms. Mendoza’s finances and two, she’s now a public figure for whom there are less legal protections about what can be said about her. Obviously, the information provided in the article is accurate.
Your comments about a “shakedown” and this being “sensationalized news” is humorous. Holding candidates, and elected and appointed officials accountable, and asking them sometimes tough questions, no matter when the information upon which the questions are asked is received, is the role of the media. We did our job and we’d do it again. People who want to be in charge of taxpayer money and hold the power of government must expect scrutiny of decisions in their own lives, especially if they don’t match up with what they’re claiming publicly. Then it’s up to the voting public to decide if their responses are adequate.
You could also say thank you for being the only media outlet to provide you with this information about a candidate for public office, as well as providing you the news for free. It’s unfortunate that this information wasn’t received sooner so we could have published the article earlier in the campaign so that more voters could be made aware of her handling of finances, (which another newspaper praised her for and gave as a reason for their endorsement of her) prior to voting. It might have made a difference in the outcome of the election. But, who knows? The fact is Ms. Mendoza was elected and we can hope she is held accountable to ensure she handles the public’s finances better than her own.
Allen Payton, Publisher & Editor
Thank you for your reply.