Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)

Citation
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)
Parent Document
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1997-08-26

Other Sections in This Document (115)

Full Text

951 chars
Nor do the factors the high court articulated in Penn Central and subsequent cases indicate a taking in this case. The “economic impact” (Penn Central, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 124 [98 S.Ct. at p. 2659]) on Kavanau of the 12 percent limit, which in effect merely delayed his rent increase, was not significant when compared to the benefits he continued to receive from his property, including significant rental income (id. at p. 130 [98 S.Ct. at p. 2662] [rejecting assertion that a reviewing court should consider the property interest that a regulation affects in isolation from unaffected property interests]). Similarly, the “interfere[nce] with [Kavanau’s] distinct investment-backed expectations” (id. at p. 124 [98 S.Ct. at p. 2659]) was minor, considering he had constructive knowledge of the 12 percent limit when he chose to improve his property. Finally, the “character of the governmental action” (ibid.) does not compel us to find a taking.