Sea Castle Apartments, Ltd. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1540 (1991)

Citation: Sea Castle Apartments, Ltd. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1540 (1991)
Parent Document: Sea Castle Apartments, Ltd. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1540 (1991)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1991-04-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5807699/sea-castle-apartments-ltd-v-san... ↗

Full Text

796 chars

“Where, as here, an unsubsidized insured project is involved, an inconsistency between state and federal law will arise only upon a finding of jeopardy to HUD’s economic interest. Absent such a finding, tenant *1546protection under the local rent control laws is respected. The jeopardy determination involves a careful assessment of the mortgagor’s financial position .... [Citation.] Thus tenant protection under the local rent control laws is not arbitrarily terminable by the federal government. [Citation.] Rather, it exists unless and until a determination is reached, after a [determination], that ‘federal interests [are] sufficiently imperiled to invoke the principle of federal supremacy’ [citation].” (Gramercy Spire Tenants’ Ass’n v. Harris (S.D. N.Y. 1977) 446 F.Supp. 814, 826-827.)

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text