Parkmerced Co. v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board

Citations: 215 Cal. App. 3d 490; 263 Cal. Rptr. 617; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1143Docket: A042751

Court: California Court of Appeal; November 9, 1989; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of California reviewed a case involving Parkmerced Company and the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, along with Margot Abenheim, who appealed a decision granting a writ of administrative mandamus to Parkmerced. Abenheim claimed she was entitled to rent control protections under the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. 

Abenheim initially moved into an apartment with her brother, Clarence Honey, in 1981, and she consistently paid rent using personal checks. After Honey decided to vacate the apartment in 1985, Abenheim sought to lease the apartment in her name but was presented with a significant rent increase from $462.34 to $607 per month. Abenheim argued that, as a continuing tenant under the Rent Ordinance, her rent should have been capped at approximately $480. 

Following a hearing on February 19, 1987, the Rent Board’s hearing officer determined Abenheim qualified as a tenant under the Rent Ordinance and that the proposed rent increase was unlawful, exceeding the allowed limits. However, Parkmerced appealed this decision, leading to the trial court's conclusion that Abenheim's lease signed in September 1985 marked her first formal rental obligation, and thus the rent increase was valid as it did not constitute an increase over any prior obligation. 

Consequently, the court issued a writ of mandate in May 1988, which was subsequently appealed by the Rent Board. The discussion highlights that the Rent Ordinance defines a tenant based on occupancy, emphasizing that such occupancy is what triggers rent control protections.

The trial court's conclusion that Abenheim could not have experienced an illegal rent increase because her rental obligation began on September 1, 1985, is deemed flawed. This reasoning overlooks the ordinance's protection for individuals legally occupying rental units, irrespective of their rent obligation's origin. Abenheim qualifies as a 'tenant' under the Rent Ordinance and is thus protected from rent increases. Parkmerced was aware of Abenheim's occupancy with her brother since 1981 and did not contest it, as evidenced by Honey's annual lease rental applications listing Abenheim as an occupant, which were incorporated into Honey's leases. Abenheim’s payment of rent via personalized checks over four years further indicates Parkmerced’s consent to her tenancy. Legal precedents affirm that a tenancy can arise from occupancy with the owner's consent, independent of a formal lease. The trial court's assertion that Abenheim had no prior obligation to pay rent until signing a formal agreement is incorrect; liability for rent can arise from occupancy and consent rather than merely contractual agreements. The Rent Ordinance aims to protect tenants due to factors like low vacancy rates and excessive rent increases, and this protection is not confined to those with formal leases. The overarching public policy intent of the ordinance is to extend safeguards to all tenants in residence.

Remedial legislation, such as the rent control ordinance, requires liberal interpretation to fulfill its intended purpose. Parkmerced's proposal for a restrictive interpretation, which would deny rent control protections to a long-term resident without a formal lease, is rejected. Parkmerced claims its actions were justified under section 37.9(a)(5), which allows eviction for tenants who do not renew their lease. However, the court finds this interpretation misapplies the Rent Ordinance, as section 37.9 defines limited eviction reasons and does not alter the class of protected individuals under the ordinance. The judgment is reversed, with concurrence from Justices Benson and Peterson. The Supreme Court denied further review, though Justice Panelli believed the petition should be granted. 

The court also addresses procedural history noting inadequate audio from initial hearings necessitated a de novo hearing for review. Parkmerced's argument that accepting rent checks from non-signatory tenants undermines established tenancy is dismissed; the acceptance of checks is relevant to establishing consent for occupancy. Additionally, Parkmerced’s claim that Abenheim could not establish a landlord-tenant relationship due to prior leasing arrangements is found unpersuasive, allowing for the possibility of co-tenancy. Arguments asserting Abenheim's lack of legal obligation to leases fail, as her status as a legitimate tenant grants her rent control benefits independent of those leases. The court confirms Abenheim's obligation to pay rent prior to signing a lease, concluding sufficient evidence exists to make this determination without remand.