T & a Drolapas & Sons, LP v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board
238 Cal. App. 4th 646
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1995 Javier and Barbara Lara rented a San Francisco apartment; their son Gerald Borjas (age 6 at move-in) lived there with them and with the landlord’s consent.
- Drolapas purchased the building in 2000; the Laras remained tenants and continued paying rent even after they moved out in 2010 to Daly City; Borjas stayed in the unit and paid his parents when able.
- In May 2011 Drolapas served a 60-day rent-increase notice asserting Costa-Hawkins vacancy decontrol applied because the original tenants (the Laras) no longer lived there.
- Borjas filed a tenant petition with the Rent Board claiming he was an “original occupant”; the Rent Board (and ALJ) ruled for Borjas, finding he was an original occupant and alternatively a subtenant who resided there before 1/1/1996.
- Drolapas sought writ relief in superior court; the trial court denied the writ. On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, following Mosser Companies v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person who moved into a rent-controlled unit as a child is an “original occupant” under Civ. Code §1954.53(d)(2) | Borjas is not an "original occupant" because he was a minor and not a party to the rental agreement | Borjas is an "original occupant" if he resided in the unit from the start of the tenancy with the landlord’s consent | Court held Borjas is an "original occupant"; occupancy, not lease signatory status, controls (followed Mosser Companies) |
| Whether a person who resided in the unit before Jan. 1, 1996 is protected from unlimited rent increases even if they became a lawful subtenant only later | Drolapas: unlimited increase allowed because Borjas was not a subtenant before Jan. 1, 1996 | Borjas: statute protects lawful sublessees/assignees who did reside in the unit prior to Jan. 1, 1996, regardless of when subtenancy began | Court held protection applies: statute requires (1) lawful sublessee/assignee and (2) that person resided in unit prior to Jan. 1, 1996; both need not be simultaneous, so Borjas qualifies |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosser Companies v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board, 233 Cal. App. 4th 505 (Cal. Ct. App.) (minor who resided with parents at start of tenancy is an "original occupant")
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 83 Cal. App. 4th 28 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Costa-Hawkins Act preemption and vacancy decontrol explained)
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (Cal.) (scope of Costa-Hawkins recognized)
- Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal. 4th 1003 (Cal.) (legislative policy choices on rent regulation are for legislature, not courts)