Mosser Companies v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board
233 Cal. App. 4th 505
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Mosser Companies (landlord) owns a 9-unit San Francisco apartment subject to the city rent‑stabilization ordinance; lease (2003) named parents Parmanathan and Marilyn Govender as tenants.
- Their son Brian (age 13 in 2003) moved in with parents with landlord’s approval though he was not a signatory to the lease.
- In 2012 the parents vacated; Brian (age 23) remained. Landlord served notice raising rent far above the rent‑control limit.
- Rent board concluded Brian was an “original occupant” protected by Civil Code § 1954.53(d) and denied the increase; the board’s decision was affirmed on administrative and trial review.
- The core legal question: whether an individual who began residing in the unit with landlord’s consent at the start of the tenancy—though not a party to the lease and a minor at that time—qualifies as an “original occupant” so as to prevent vacancy decontrol.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an "original occupant who took possession pursuant to the rental agreement" is limited to lease signatories | Brian was not a party to the lease, so vacancy decontrol applies when the named tenants left | “Original occupant” includes lawful residents who took possession with owner’s permission; need not be a lease party | Held for defendant: statute protects lawful occupants who began occupancy with owner’s consent, even if not lease signatories |
| Whether physical possession vs. legal tenancy controls the §1954.53(d) test | Landlord: “took possession” is a legal term of art requiring party status | Statute uses “occupant,” not “tenant” or “party,” indicating physical/residential possession suffices | Court adopts plain meaning: occupant = resident with permission; no party status required |
| Whether minors who began occupancy gain perpetual rent‑control protection when they become adults and parents leave | Landlord: unenforceable policy — minors should not be able to ‘inherit’ tenancy and avoid vacancy decontrol | Tenancy by occupancy with consent creates obligations and rights; statutory text covers original lawful occupants regardless of age when occupancy began | Court: protection applies; minor who lawfully occupied remains an original occupant entitled to continued protection |
| Whether public‑policy concerns justify judicial narrowing of the statute | Landlord: economic/policy harms warrant narrowing to avoid multi‑generational perpetuation | Court: policy concerns are for legislature; statute’s clear language controls | Court declined to rewrite statute; left policy changes to lawmakers |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennell v. San Jose, 485 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1988) (describes competing interests in rent regulation)
- Parkmerced Co. v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd., 215 Cal.App.3d 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (San Francisco ordinance protects lawful occupants even if not lease signatories)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 83 Cal.App.4th 28 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (occupancy "pursuant to the rental agreement" includes occupants with owner’s permission)
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2007) (discusses Costa‑Hawkins effect of vacancy decontrol)
- Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal.4th 1003 (Cal. 2001) (legislature, not courts, decides rent‑regulation policy bounds)