Kirkpatrick

Kirkpatrick v. City of Oceanside

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 803·232 Cal. App. 3d 267·283 Cal. Rptr. 191·91 Daily Journal DAR 8587·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5623
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 15, 1991D011075California9,559 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

—Merrill L. Kirkpatrick and Rosanna F. Kirkpatrick (Kirkpatricks), husband and wife owners of an Oceanside mobilehome park named Laguna Vista Mobile Estates, appeal from an order dismissing this action after the trial court sustained without leave to amend general demurrers brought by the State of California (State) and the City of Oceanside (City) to Kirkpatricks’ complaint for inverse condemnation and declaratory relief. Kirkpatricks sought to have the City’s mobilehome rent control ordinance, Ordinance No. 82-27 (Ordinance), declared unconstitutional as applied to their park and to have its application in conjunction with the State’s Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ. Code, § 798 et seq.) declared a confiscatory “taking” of their property by inverse condemnation. We affirm in part and reverse in part for the reasons explained below.

Factual and Procedural Background

For purposes of reviewing the order sustaining the general demurrers, we accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true, and also consider matters properly judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ].) The complaint originally alleged three causes of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.