Bobys v. Mester
Before: Bartlett
BARTLETT, J. pro tem. The appellants in this action filed a complaint for declaratory relief against some of their tenants asking the court to hold that an establishment owned by them in Beverly Hills, California, had been decontrolled [584]or excepted from the effects of the Federal Rent Control Act of 1942 as amended by the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 [61 Stats. 193; 50 U.S.C.App. §§ 1881-1902],
In their opening brief appellants clearly and succinctly state the issues as defined by the pleadings as follows: “Appellants are the owners of ‘The Adelon,’ a three-story building located at 152 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California, containing certain housing accommodations consisting of 30 residential units. Prior to June 30, 1947, the housing accommodations in this establishment were subject to the Federal Rent Control Act of 1942, as amended. On July 1, 1947, the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 was enacted into law by the Federal Government, which law excepted from further rent control, housing accommodations which are located in an establishment which is commonly known as a hotel in the community in which it is located, and which are occupied by persons who are provided customary hotel service.
“The material issues of fact presented by the pleadings and upon which the Court ruled and upon which this appeal is based are those contained in paragraph VI of the complaint which are denied by paragraph III of the answer are:
“1. Was ‘The Adelon’ on June 30, 1947, commonly known as a hotel in the community in which it is located?
“2. Was ‘The Adelon’ on June 30, 1947, providing customary hotel service to the persons who occupied it?”
The portion of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 under which appellants claim their establishment had been decontrolled or excepted from the Federal Rent Control Act of 1942 was as follows: “(e) The term controlled housing accommodations means housing accommodations in any defense-rental area, except that it does not include:
“(1) those housing accommodations, in any establishment . . . which is commonly known as a hotel in the community in which it is located, which are occupied by persons who are provided customary hotel services such as maid service, furnishing and laundering of linen, telephone and secretarial or desk service, use and upkeep of furniture and fixtures, and bellboy service.” (61 Stats. 196, title II, § 202, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1892.)
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)