Richman

Richman v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 876·7 Cal. App. 4th 1457·9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690·92 Daily Journal DAR 9592·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6273
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 22, 1992B058782California3,312 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

Appellant Santa Monica Rent Control Board (Board) appeals from a judgment granting respondent’s petition for a writ of mandate on statutory grounds. The writ ordered the Board to set aside its decision that base rent included parking on two particular rental units owned by respondent. We reverse.

Factual and Procedural Synopsis

I. The Rent Control Law

The Board is a public agency created by the Santa Monica City Charter and vested with authority to administer and enforce article XVIII of that charter (the Rent Control Law). Respondent is an owner of rental property in Santa Monica subject to the Rent Control Law.

The Rent Control Law limits rents by establishing a base rent ceiling of the rent in effect on April 10, 1978. (§ 1804 (b).) The Board is charged with determining the proper base rent ceiling for a particular unit and may make upward or downward adjustments of the base rent ceiling. (§§ 1803 (f)(3) & 1805.)

The Rent Control Law required landlords to register all controlled rental units with the Board within 60 days after its adoption. (§ 1803 (q).) The initial registration required the landlord to disclose, among other things, the rent in effect at the time…

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.