Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Citation
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Parent Document
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2008-10-29
Other Sections in This Document (66)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
- § 3513
Full Text
892 charstwo separate residential units within the erstwhile single-family structure. Each unit had its own full kitchen, laundry area, driveway, mailbox, and garbage pickup location. Landlord and tenant used separate entries and exits, had their own telephone and cable television lines, and did not interact while in their homes. Based on the property’s condition and use, Judge Abrams found the building was a duplex. Entering judgment for tenant, Judge Abrams ruled the duplex was subject to the RSO, which limited rent increases to approximately 3 percent a year during the period at issue in these proceedings. In November 2005, the appellate department of the superior court affirmed Judge Abrams’s ruling. In doing so, it noted “the residence did not retain its essential character as a single-family residence. Substantial remodeling was done to create two truly separate and complete units.”