Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)

Citation: Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)
Parent Document: Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2022-08-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7859842/hirschfield-v-cohen/ ↗

Full Text

1,634 chars

2
within five years of the date the accommodations were
withdrawn from rent or lease, . . . notwithstanding any
exemption from the system of controls for newly constructed
accommodations.”
       Hirschfield contends that because there is a now a single-
family dwelling on the property, it is exempt from the City’s rent
control laws under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ.
Code, § 1954.52 et seq.; Costa-Hawkins Act), which proscribes the
imposition of rent controls on “a dwelling or a unit” that is
“alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit . . . .”
(Id., subd. (a)(3)(A).)
       We do not read the Costa-Hawkins Act so broadly to
supersede the Ellis Act. Section 7060.2(d) of the Ellis Act applies
to the single-family dwelling on Hirschfield’s property
notwithstanding the Costa-Hawkin Act’s exemption from local
rent control for separately alienable dwelling units, because the
house is an “accommodation” under section 7060.2(d) of the Ellis
Act; it was constructed on the same property as the five former
rent-controlled units; and it was offered for rent within five years
from when the five units were withdrawn from the rental market.
The legislative history of the Ellis Act makes clear the
Legislature intended to discourage landlords from evicting
tenants from rent-controlled accommodations under the false
pretense of leaving the rental business. This intent would be
defeated if a landlord could evade rent control by evicting tenants
and simply replacing one (or more) rent-controlled
accommodations with a single-family dwelling. We affirm. 3
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text