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

1,429 chars

D.    Section 7060.2(d) of the Ellis Act Applies to Replacement of
      Multi-unit Apartments with Single-family Dwellings
      Section 7060.2(d)’s provision for replacement of demolished
rent-controlled units draws no distinction between multi-unit
dwellings and single-family dwellings—it simply provides that if
rent-controlled “accommodations are demolished, and new
accommodations are constructed on the same property,” the new
accommodations are subject to rent control if offered for rent or
lease within five years of withdrawal. And as discussed, the Ellis
Act defines “[a]ccommodations” to include not only multi-unit
structures but “detached physical structure[s] containing three or
fewer residential rental units,” which would include single-family
dwellings. (§ 7060, subd. (b)(1)(A), (B).)
      The Board contends that because section 7060.2(d) clearly
applies to single-family dwellings, Hirschfield’s property falls
within the recontrol provision, and our inquiry ends there. But
even where a statute appears unambiguous on its face, we do not
examine the language in isolation, but rather, in the context of
the entire statutory system and closely related statutes.
(Jarman, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 382; Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan
& Ross, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 43, 50.) In contrast to the Ellis
Act, the Costa-Hawkins Act distinguishes between types of
accommodations, unambiguously exempting single-family

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text