People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- Citation
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988) (8)
- Parent Document
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1988-02-17
Other Sections in This Document (65)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
- People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
Full Text
1,331 chars(8) Appellants next contend that the assessment of $221,700 in civil penalties was an abuse of discretion. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17206, persons committing unfair business practices "shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ($2,500) for each violation. . . ." The trial court found that 4,259 tenants paid the $65 increment between January 1, 1978 (the day present § 1950.5 went into effect) and the time of trial. It found 175 tenants paid the $50 transfer fee between January 1, 1978 and June 18, 1981, when appellants ceased charging it. The trial court did not specify how it determined the civil penalty, but dividing the total assessment by the number of tenants paying the fees equals $50 per tenant. Violations may be calculated on a "per victim" basis. (People v. Superior Court (Jayhill Corp.) (1973) 9 Cal.3d 283, 289 [107 Cal.Rptr. 192, 507 P.2d 1400, 55 A.L.R.3d 191]; People v.Toomey (1985) 157 Cal.App.3d 1, 23 [203 Cal.Rptr. 642].) In view of the fact that appellants have not claimed the award was disproportionate to their wealth or ability to pay, and considering that they continued charging the $65 increment until trial despite being aware since 1980 that the district attorney was investigating their practice, we see no abuse of discretion. (See People v. Toomey, supra.)