Mak v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, 240 Cal. App. 4th 60 (2015)

1
Civil Code section 1954.50 et seq. 1 (the Act), the Rent Board was prohibited from
limiting the rent that could be charged at the commencement of the new tenancy. But the
Act does not prohibit the application of rent control limits to a new tenant if “the
preceding tenancy has been terminated by the owner by notice pursuant to section
1946.1” (§§ 1954.52, subd. (a)(B)(i); 1954.52, subd. (c)), and the Rent Board’s regulation
(Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd. Regs., ch. 10, reg. 1016 (Regulation 1016)) creates a
rebuttable presumption that a tenant who moves out within one year of service of an
owner move-in eviction notice has moved out pursuant to that notice. At an evidentiary
hearing before the Rent Board, the Maks failed to present evidence overcoming the
presumption and the Rent Board therefore determined that the lawful rent level for Burns
was the maximum that could be charged to the Ziems. The superior court agreed when it
denied the Maks’ petition for a writ of mandate to overturn that decision. We too agree
that the Maks’s subterfuge was properly rejected. We shall therefore affirm the denial of
the writ petition.
                             Statutory and Regulatory Context
       “In August 1995, California enacted the [Act], which established ‘what is known
among landlord-tenant specialists as “vacancy decontrol,” declaring that
“[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law,” all residential landlords may, except in
specified situations, “establish the initial rental rate for a dwelling or unit.” (. . .
§ 1954.53, subd. (a).)’ [Citation.] The effect of this provision was to permit landlords ‘to
impose whatever rent they choose at the commencement of a tenancy.’ [Citation.] The
Legislature was well aware, however, that such vacancy decontrol gave landlords an
incentive to evict tenants that were paying rents below market rates. [Citation.]
Accordingly, the statute expressly preserves the authority of local governments ‘to
regulate or monitor the grounds for eviction.’ (. . . § 1954.53, subd. (e).)” (Action
Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1237-1238.)