Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)

Citation: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Parent Document: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2009-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2267097/bisno-v-douglas-emmett-realty-f... ↗

Full Text

874 chars

First, the 60-day notice requirement applies whenever a landlord demands a rent increase in the amount sought by Emmett, regardless of the reason, unless a different notification period is required by statute. Because CostaHawkins does not provide a notice period, the 60-day notice was required. (§ 827, subds. (a), (b)(3), (c).) Second, although the rent increase was sought pursuant to a statute, at heart Costa-Hawkins allows landlords to avoid local rent control ordinances and impose whatever rent they think the market will bear either at the start of a new tenancy or when an existing tenant sublets his unit. The essence of such an arrangement is by far more contractual than statutory, as exemplified by Costa-Hawkins’s express preference for any contractually agreed-upon rental rate in the event of a sublease. (§ 1954.53, subd. (d)(1).) Theoretically any demand

Other Sections in This Document (132)

Full Text