Watson v. County of Merced

California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 1969 No. Civ. 1091Published

Before: Conley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Merced County Ordinance No. 555 is a valid exercise of local authority because the State of California, while generally preempting the field of mobilehome regulation, specifically authorized counties to regulate and charge permit fees for mobilehomes located outside of mobilehome parks. The court further held that the permit fees were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence of enforcement costs.

Issues

Whether the State of California has preempted the field of mobilehome regulation, thereby invalidating Merced County Ordinance No. 555.
Whether the license fee imposed by the ordinance is unreasonable or exceeds the costs of enforcement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If and when a state has preempted a field of legislation generally, but has also specifically excepted one or more functions and has provided that counties and cities may legislate as to such specific functions, the exception is sound and viable”

“The trial court held that the ordinance was proper within the permitted limit of action by the local legislative body, the Board of Supervisors of Merced County.”

“So long as the determination made by the Supervisors is reasonable and for a proper purpose it will not be disturbed.”

CONLEY, P. J.

The 18 plaintiffs and appellants, owners of mobilehomes, sued the County of Merced, County Planning Director Hal Colwell, and District Attorney Pat Hallford, to secure a judgment that Merced County Ordinance No. 555 purportedly imposing a license fee on mobilehomes not located

[265]

in mobilehome parks and outside of unincorporated areas in Merced County is improper in that such ordinance violates California Constitution, article XI, section 11, because the State of California has preempted the field, and that the county planning director and the Merced District Attorney have no “right, power, or authority to enforce said ordinance.” One claim is that the county had no authority to enact the ordinance because the state had preempted the field, and the second direction of the attack is based on the contention that, the proposed license fee for such mobilehomes does not comply with the permission given by the state to the county to regulate this matter in that the proposed fee is too high.

It will be immediately seen that the two bases of attack are inconsistent, which, in fact, is true. It cannot be denied that, generally speaking, the state has taken over the question of taxing mobilehomes and regulating their major uses in the state, but, unfortunately for the validity of the first contention of the plaintiffs, the Legislature has specifically authorized what Merced County Ordinance No. 555 has done. If and when a state has preempted a field of legislation generally, but has also specifically excepted one or more functions and has provided that counties and cities may legislate as to such specific functions, the exception is sound and viable and neither the state nor any of its citizens can thereafter except to the performance of such specific functions by the smaller unit. It is true, as alleged in the complaint, that the State of California has generally exercised control over this field through the following enactments:

(A) California Health and Safety Code sections 18000 through 18475;

(B) California Vehicle Code, division 3, pertaining to the licensing of vehicles, including mobilehomes;

Watson v. County of Merced

AI Brief

CONLEY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief