1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)

Citation: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Parent Document: 1041 20th Street v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-07-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4644132/1041-20th-street-v-santa-monica... ↗

Full Text

1,818 chars

23
“[T]he question whether the administrative agency may reverse a
particular determination depends upon the kind of power
exercised in making the order and the terms of the statute under
which the power was exercised. As to the first factor, almost
without exception, courts have held that the determination of an
administrative agency as to the existence of a fact or status which
is based upon a present or past group of facts, may not thereafter
be altered or modified.” (Id. at p. 209.) Olive Proration does not
support affirmance here.
       We will assume for purposes of this appeal that the
doctrine of administrative finality precluded the Board from
reconsidering its granting of a removal permit to 20th Street
Owner in 1993. In granting the Category C removal permit, the
Board concluded that the 20th Street property was uninhabitable
and could not be made habitable in an economically feasible
manner. Even if the Board could not revisit that decision 23
years later, that is not what the Board did here. As discussed
above, the Board has conceded that 20th Street Owner remains
free to remove its units from the rental housing market, even if
the property is now habitable.
       To the extent 20th Street Owner argues that the Board
may not reconsider its prior conclusion that removal permits
exempt units from rent control, the doctrine of administrative
finality does not apply when an agency acts beyond its authority:
“Implicit in the cases denying a board’s power to review or
reexamine a question, however, is the qualification that the board
must have acted within its jurisdiction and within the powers
conferred on it. Where a board’s order is not based upon a
determination of fact, but upon an erroneous conclusion of law,
and is without the board’s authority, the order is clearly void

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text