Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)

Citation
Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)
Parent Document
Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2001-05-23

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text

985 chars
*164 On the City's appeal, the Supreme Court reversed. The court rejected Nash's argument that he had a right to go out of the apartment rental business, but the City of Santa Monica was forcing him to remain in that business against his will. (Nash, supra, 37 Cal.3d at pp. 102-103, 207 Cal. Rptr. 285, 688 P.2d 894.) The Supreme Court reasoned that Nash was free to relinquish personal involvement with the rental property by hiring a property manager; withholding units from the rental market as they became vacant; or selling the property to someone willing to continue in the rental housing business. (Id. at p. 103, 207 Cal.Rptr. 285, 688 P.2d 894.) The court further held that the restrictions imposed on Nash by the charter provision were "indirect and minimal," and constituted a permissible form of regulation of property ownership to satisfy Santa Monica's "legitimate goal of maintaining adequate rental housing." (Id. at pp. 104-105, 109, 207 Cal.Rptr. 285, 688 P.2d 894.)