Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)

Citation: Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)
Parent Document: Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3159177/foster-v-britton/ ↗

Full Text

2,115 chars

11
interferes with the notice procedures required by section 827, or any other procedural
protections. Rather, its effect is to regulate the substantive grounds on which a landlord
may evict a tenant.
We do not agree with Britton that section 827 was intended to limit the substantive
grounds for eviction. Subdivision (a) of section 827 provides that in “all leases of lands
or tenements,” the landlord may change the terms of the lease, including “terms, rents,
and conditions,” after giving the notice required by the statute. (Italics added.)
Similarly, subdivision (b) provides that in “all leases of a residential dwelling,” “the
landlord may increase the rent provided in the lease or rental agreement,” after giving the
specified notice. Despite theses references to rent, our high court has explicitly
concluded that section 827 does not “establish[] or impl[y] any legislative intent to
exclude municipal regulation of the amount of rent based on local conditions.”
(Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 142.) We see no principled basis to conclude that in
enacting section 827, the Legislature intended unilateral changes in rent—which section
827 does not preempt—to be treated differently than unilateral changes in other terms of
a lease. Viewing the statute as a whole in light of the governing precedent, we conclude
its purpose is to establish procedural safeguards for tenants when landlords raise the rent
or change other terms of the tenancy, and not to prevent local governments from
regulating the substantive grounds for eviction.
Accordingly, we reject Britton’s contention that Rule 12.20 conflicts with or is
preempted by state law.9
B. The Board Did Not Exceed its Authority in Promulgating Rule 12.20
As a second challenge to Rule 12.20, Britton contends the Rent Board exceeded its
authority in promulgating it. According to Britton, the Rent Ordinance sets out
9
We do not consider the unpublished superior court cases cited by Britton. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a); Neary v. Regents of University of California (1992)
3 Cal.4th 273, 282.)

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text