242 Cal. App. 4th 920
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Margaret Foster, a long-term month-to-month tenant in San Francisco, was served unilateral "House Rules" by landlord Britton after he purchased the building; the rules changed parking, storage, laundry, garbage service, pets, and backyard use and stated tenants accept by remaining in possession after 30 days.
- Foster sued for a declaration that Civil Code § 827 does not preempt San Francisco Rent Board Rule 12.20 and that Rule 12.20 bars eviction based on unilateral house rules; the Rent Board intervened supporting the rule.
- Britton cross-complained seeking declarations that § 827 preempts Rule 12.20 and that Rules 12.20 and 6.15C exceed the Rent Board’s authority.
- Trial court granted summary judgment/adjudication ruling § 827 does not preempt Rule 12.20 and sustained demurrers to Britton’s challenges; later granted judgment for Rent Board on Rule 6.15C challenge.
- Rule 12.20: tenants may not be evicted for violating a covenant not in the original rental agreement unless the change is authorized by the Rent Ordinance, required by law, or accepted in writing after notice. Rule 6.15C limits master-tenant overcharges and provides such violations are not a basis for eviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civil Code § 827 preempts Rent Board Rule 12.20 | Foster: § 827 creates procedural notice rights only; it does not preclude local regulation of substantive eviction grounds, so Rule 12.20 is valid | Britton: § 827 makes unilateral changes effective if tenant remains; it preempts any local rule that prevents those changes from becoming enforceable terms | Held: § 827 does not preempt Rule 12.20; § 827 protects procedural notice but does not remove local power to limit substantive eviction grounds |
| Whether Rent Board exceeded authority in adopting Rule 12.20 | Foster: Rule 12.20 fills in details of Rent Ordinance and furthers its purpose to prevent circumvention of rent controls | Britton: Rule 12.20 creates extra exceptions to eviction grounds beyond those the Supervisors enumerated | Held: Rent Board acted within delegated authority and reasonably interpreted the Rent Ordinance; Rule 12.20 effectuates eviction-control purposes |
| Whether Rent Board exceeded authority in adopting Rule 6.15C (subd. 3) | Rent Board: limiting landlord-based eviction remedy for master-tenant overcharges protects subtenants and furthers Rent Ordinance goals | Britton: Rule 6.15C improperly removes a landlord’s right to evict for breach and creates an unauthorized exception | Held: Rule 6.15C is within Rent Board authority; remedy for overcharges properly rests with injured subtenant and eviction restriction furthers ordinance aims |
| Ripeness / request to adjudicate whether Rule 12.20 bars eviction absent a pending unlawful detainer | Foster sought summary adjudication that Rule 12.20 bars eviction for violating unilateral house rules | Britton: Issue not ripe because no eviction action pending | Held: Trial court correctly found issue not ripe; Foster dismissed that claim without prejudice; appellate challenge on that point waived by Britton |
Key Cases Cited
- Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (municipal rent-control may limit substantive eviction grounds though it cannot frustrate state unlawful detainer procedures)
- Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 37 Cal.3d 644 (local rent-control provisions that create defenses to eviction are not preempted when they effectuate municipal police-power goals)
- Danekas v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd., 95 Cal.App.4th 638 (Rent Board rules regulating eviction grounds fit within ordinance purpose; agency may ‘‘fill up the details’’)
- Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, 171 Cal.App.4th 741 (municipal ordinances may limit substantive eviction grounds but cannot impair statutory summary eviction procedure)
- Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon, 97 Cal.App.4th 335 (preemption issues reviewed de novo)