Berman v. City of West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Department

California Court of Appeal Jan 12, 1988 No. No. B023596Published

Before: Danielson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a municipal rent control ordinance requiring landlords to maintain rental units, including periodic painting, is a constitutional exercise of police power to ensure affordable, well-maintained housing. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to tax costs because no timely notice of appeal was filed for that specific order.

Issues

Whether a municipal rent control ordinance requiring periodic maintenance of rental units is unconstitutional as a taking or a violation of due process and equal protection.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to tax costs when no notice of appeal was filed for that order.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the provision in section 6412 requiring the landlord to paint all rental units no less than once every four years is not unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff.”

“Since the filing of a timely notice of appeal from the order is jurisdictional, we cannot deem the appeal from the judgment to encompass that order.”

[839]Opinion

DANIELSON, J. Marianne Berman (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment1 in favor of the City of West Hollywood (the City), City of West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Department (the Department), and Adam Moos (Moos), director of that department, (collectively, defendants). Eugene R. Scholler (Scholler), plaintiff’s tenant, is not a party to this appeal. We affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Statement

On December 17, 1985, plaintiff filed a verified complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on the following pertinent allegations:

On June 27, 1985, the City enacted a rent control ordinance (ordinance), which was enforced by the Department and Moos. On December 7, 1985, plaintiff was served with a notice of hearing informing her that section 6412 of the ordinance (§ 6412) was being invoked against her and that at the hearing the Department would determine whether the rent of plaintiff’s tenant would be lowered based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide the tenant with certain services at apartment number 15, 1265 North Harper Avenue. Plaintiff took the contrary position that since the apartment was leased on an “as is” basis, she was not required pursuant to the rental agreement, to paint, recarpet or redrape the apartment.

On April 15, 1986, a verified first amended complaint was filed. In the first cause of action plaintiff petitioned the court for a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5). The second cause of action sought a declaration that section 6412 was unenforcible and invalid in the absence of an agreement by the landlord with the tenant to perform the services embraced by section 6412. In addition to the above plaintiff further alleged that following a hearing op December 18, 1985, the Department’s hearing examiner issued a notice of determination which ordered plaintiff to repaint the tenant’s apartment or submit to a reduction in the allowable monthly rent.2 The notice also indicated that plaintiff was obligated to install carpets and drapes, but the tenant had failed to submit the necessary proof to support [840]such an order. On March 26, 1986, following a hearing, the Department denied plaintiff’s appeal from the hearing examiner’s determination.

Berman v. City of West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Department

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

I. Constitutionality of Section 6412 of the Ordinance

II. Order Denying the Motion to Tax Costs

AI Brief