Cole

Cole v. City of Oakland Residential Rent Arbitration Board

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 158·3 Cal. App. 4th 693·4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 593·92 Daily Journal DAR 2089·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1314
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 13, 1992A051848California2,403 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Sally Cole and four other tenants of residential property in the City of Oakland (City) appeal from a judgment denying their petition for writ of mandate by which the trial court refused to overturn a decision by the Oakland Residential Rent Arbitration Board (Board) approving a 42 percent rent increase for their apartment units.

The City’s local rent ordinance allows landlords to impose a rental increase where there is an increase in debt service in order to cover combined expenses and debt service costs. The Board interprets the ordinance to mean that the applicable date for computing rental income is the date that the landlord serves a notice of rent increase on a petitioning tenant. Appellants disagree and claim that the permissible increase should have been computed based on the landlord’s “current” income, i.e., after the nonpetitioning tenants have begun paying their rental increases.

We find that the Board’s construction is neither unauthorized nor clearly erroneous, and therefore uphold the decision of the trial court denying the requested relief.

Background

The Ordinance

Oakland City Council Ordinance No. 9980 (Ordinance)…

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.