A Los Angeles property owner who leased a multi-family dwelling could not collect a rent increase of more than about 3% per year, even if the tenant agreed to pay more. That is the most broadly applicable portion of a recent appellate court ruling in a nasty dispute between a landlord and tenant.
Tenant Andrew Gombiner and landlord Daniel Swartz appear to have been feuding off and on since January 1998, when Gombiner signed a two-year lease for a home on Sunset Plaza Drive in Los Angeles. The monthly rent was $3,500 for the first year, and $4,000 for the second. In June of that year, Gombiner sued Swartz for fraud for misrepresenting the residence as a single-family house. In fact, Swartz had converted the structure into a duplex; Gombiner leased the top portion, while Swartz resided in the lower unit. They settled in 2000 when Swartz paid his tenant $25,000, and Gombiner promised not to complain to any government authority about matters covered by the settlement. In July 2001, they signed an amendment raising the monthly rent to $5,900.
After a dispute involving repair of a broken water heater and late payment of rent, Gombiner sued his landlord for $83,400 in unauthorized rent increases. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Judith Abrams ruled that the property was subject to Los Angeles's rent stabilization ordinance, which limited annual rent increases to about 3%. The court's appellate department confirmed the ruling.
When Gombiner then stopped paying rent, Swartz filed an unlawful detainer suit. In a bifurcated trial, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Murphy ignored Judge Abrams's ruling and determined the rent stabilization ordinance in essence did not apply because Swartz and Gombiner had signed two agreements negotiated by attorneys. Murphy also ruled that as of November 2004, Swartz had converted the property back to a single-family house. In the second half of the trial, a jury found that Gombiner had breached the lease and settlement agreement by not paying rent and contacting the government. The jury ordered payment of back rent, damages, interest and attorney fees totaling $453,000.
The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight, ruled that Judge Murphy made several crucial errors stemming from her decision to ignore Judge Abrams's original ruling. Key among those errors was Murphy's ruling that the parties could by mutual consent exempt the property from the rent control ordinance.
"[A] landlord cannot, even with the tenant's acquiescence or by mutual agreement, circumvent that which the law prohibits. An agreement that violates the law is void and unenforceable," Justice Laurence Rubin wrote for the court.
Because of Murphy's incorrect ruling and subsequent erroneous jury instructions, the Second District sent the case back to Superior Court for a new trial.
In 2005, the city added a "nonwaiver provision" to the rent stabilization ordinance to make clear the law's applicability to all rented multi-family residences, except those built after 1978 and condominiums. The ordinance covers hundreds of thousands of housing units. As of July 2006, the maximum permitted rent increase is 4% annually.
The Case: Gombiner v. Swartz, No. B196182, 08 C.D.O.S. 13711, 2008 DJDAR 16410. Filed October 29, 2008. The Lawyers: For Gombiner: Leo Schwarz, (818) 222-2888. For Swartz: James Cooper, Levinson, Arshonsky & Kurtz, (818) 382-3434.
A City of Los Angeles ordinance that subjects replacement rental units to the city's rent control scheme has been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court rejected the argument that the ordinance violates the Costa-Hawkins Act, which exempts newly constructed units from local rent control measures. >>read more
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The City of Claremont's moratorium on dispensaries of medical marijuana and a Superior Court injunction shuttering a dispensary have been upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The City of Los Angeles had no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to complete an environmental impact report for a project that it had rejected, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court dismissed all arguments put forward by the developer of the 555-acre Las Lomas project at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14. "[I]f an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project," the court said, "CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward."
The Los Angeles Unified School District has successfully defended against a City of Long Beach lawsuit that challenged numerous aspects of a new high school's environmental impact report.
A state appellate court has issued a ruling in an eminent domain case that could have expensive ramifications for government agencies. The court ruled that a business owner isn't required to have a written lease in order to seek compensation for lost goodwill resulting from a government taking of property.
Property assessments levied to fund the downtown Pomona Property and Business Improvement District did not violate Proposition 218, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled for a second time.
A state appellate court has upheld the City of Los Angeles's refusal to grant a conditional use permit for the sale and on-site consumption of alcohol at an adult cabaret. The court ruled that the decision to deny the permit strictly concerned alcohol and did not prohibit the expression of protected speech.
A decision by the Coastal Commission not to intervene in a dispute between Malibu property owners was upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court affirmed the Commission's refusal to conduct a hearing on a proposed beachfront house that was approved by the City of Malibu but opposed by the next door neighbors. The court also found that a State Lands Commission failure to investigate the project's potential impact on public tidelands was not enough to disturb the city's approval.
The Coastal Commission has no jurisdiction over a fence at the base of a coastal bluff in Torrance because a 1988 boundary agreement among state entities and landowners authorized the fence, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled.
A mobile home park owner in San Luis Obispo County has won a state court order for a new county hearing on a rent increase. The Second District Court of Appeal ruled that Manufactured Home Communities is due a new hearing because it did not have the opportunity to cross-examine tenants who testified against the proposed rent increases at an earlier county hearing.
A property owner cannot participate in a California Coastal Commission appeal process for years and then assert that the Commission was prohibited from considering the appeal because it missed a procedural deadline years earlier, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected a Pacific Palisades landowner's contention that the Commission had lost jurisdiction over an appeal of the landowner's three-lot development because the Commission did not conduct a hearing within 49 days of receiving an appeal in 1999.
