Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993)

Citation: Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993)
Parent Document: Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1993-10-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2270028/kavanau-v-santa-monica-rent-con... ↗

Full Text

864 chars

But that is not what the Board has in mind. At oral argument, we asked counsel for the Board to identify the type of circumstance which might be considered “extraordinary” within the meaning of Regulation 4107(f). Quite frankly, the answer we got was not the one we expected—as the Board intends to apply Regulation 4107(f), a landlord whose building is substantially destroyed by an earthquake and who has difficulty obtaining financing to rebuild it would “probably” be eligible for relief from the 12 percent cap. But a landlord in the position of Earl Kavanau would not. In short, to the City of Santa Monica’s Rent Control Board, “extraordinary” means insolvency or an act of God is threatened or has actually arrived and it does not include the mere loss of a fair and reasonable return. (Cf. Calfarm Ins. Co. v. Deukmejian, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 818.) 6 D.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text