Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

CABINDA v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 (2000)

Citation
CABINDA v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 (2000)
Parent Document
CABINDA v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 (2000)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2000-08-23

Other Sections in This Document (53)

Full Text

905 chars
In October 1997, the administrator of the Board sent Cabinda a notice of improper registration of vacancy increases as to six of its units, including Units 105, 109 and 110. The notice stated that "Regulation 3201(g)(2)(e) [sic] provides that a tenancy of less than four (4) months will be considered a sham. It does not appear that qualifying vacancies have occurred. In each unit, the vacating tenant occupied the unit for less than 4 months. [¶] Based on these facts, it appears that you are not entitled under the law to implement the vacancy related rent increase. If you disagree with this analysis, you may wish to submit additional information to us regarding your right to the rent increase. We will not adjust the maximum allowable rent in our records pending further contact from you." Cabinda was given 10 days to submit additional information in writing to rebut the administrator's analysis.