Rich v. Schwab

California Court of Appeal Dec 14, 1984 No. Civ. 31305Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a rent increase notice providing less than the statutory 60-day period is void, that retaliatory motive under Civil Code section 1942.5 presents a triable issue of fact, and that the suit qualifies as a class action.

Issues

Whether a rent increase notice providing fewer than 60 days is void under Civil Code section 798.30.
Whether a landlord's retaliatory motive in raising rent presents a triable issue of fact.
Whether the tenants' suit meets the requirements for class certification.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Landlord’s March 3 notice, untimely as to its stated May 1 effective date, is void and cannot properly increase rent 60 days after Tenants’ receipt.”

“the question of impermissible purpose is one of fact”

“Tenants’ suit is a paradigmatic class action.”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Plaintiffs Irving Rich, John Temple, Ed Tucknies, John Felker and Robert Swanson (Tenants) appeal a summary judgment favoring defendants Ronald Schwab and David Dawes (Landlord). Tenants meritoriously contend Landlord improperly noticed a rent increase and Landlord’s motive in raising their rent is a triable factual issue; also the matter is an appropriate class action.

Plaintiffs are tenants in Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park (RCMP). Defendants are partners in Western Land and Development Company, doing business as RCMP.

In the fall of 1980, the 470 RCMP lessees created a tenants’ association to prevent expected rent increases. Tenants were members of the organization’s negotiating committee.

Tenants petitioned the City of Carlsbad (City) to adopt a mobilehome park rent control ordinance. Finding a critically low mobilehome vacancy rate and rising exorbitant rents, the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting mobilehome park rent increases until December 28, 1980. Two days after the City adopted the ordinance, Landlord noticed a 13 percent rent increase effective January 1, 1981.

On December 16, 1980, the City extended the rent moratorium until February 28, 1981. On December 17, 1980, Landlord told Tenants the City’s

[742]

ordinance was unlawful and the 13 percent increase was due as previously noticed.

The parties agreed to arbitrate rent increases. Satisfied this agreement would solve mobilehome park rent problems, the City allowed the rent moratorium to expire February 28, 1981.

On March 1, 1981, Landlord notified RCMP lessees each resident’s rent was increased $80 effective May 1, 1981. Tenants did not receive actual notice until March 3, 1981. Realizing an increase due May 1 would give less than 60 days notice, on April 30, 1981, Landlord postponed the $80 increase until May 7, 1981.

Tenants brought a class action on behalf of RCMP lessees. The first cause of action alleged the $80 increase was improperly noticed (Civ. Code, § 798.30). The second cause of action alleged the $80 increase was unlawfully imposed to retaliate against RCMP lessees for their organizing and petitioning the City for rent control (Civ. Code, § 1942.5, subd. (c)).

Rich v. Schwab

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief