Cacho

Cacho v. Boudreau

Good Law
2007 Cal. LEXIS 217·2007 Daily Journal DAR 517·40 Cal. 4th 341·53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 43·149 P.3d 473
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 2007S133378California6,322 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kennard, J.

The state Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ. Code, § 798 et seq.) regulates relations between the owners and the residents of mobile-home parks. Three of its provisions are at issue here. The first provision states: “A homeowner shall not be charged a fee for other than rent, utilities, and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered.” (§ 798.31.) Under the second provision, which applies only in parks subject to local rent control laws, a local agency that administers a rent control law must allow a park owner to separately charge park residents for certain government-imposed fees, assessments, and other charges (§ 798.49, subd. (a)), but this provision expressly does not apply to property taxes (§ 798.49, subd. (d)(4)). Under the third provision, which applies when a park resident is the prevailing party in a civil action to enforce rights granted by the Mobilehome Residency Law, the trial court is vested with discretion to impose on the park owner a civil penalty not exceeding $2,000 for each “willful violation” of that law. (§ 798.86.)

We granted review here to address these issues: Does the state Mobilehome Residency Law preempt a local rent control…

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.