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)
Parent Document: People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1988-02-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2135742/people-ex-rel-smith-v-parkmerced-co/ ↗

Full Text

1,211 chars

Appellants conceded that the $50 transfer fee was never considered to be rent, but rather a fee to cover administrative costs. As to the $65 increment, there is substantial evidence that neither appellants nor tenants considered it rent, despite its being included with the first month’s rental payment. Tenants and former tenants variously testified that they were told the $65 fee was a cleaning fee, an administrative fee, a processing fee, or a move-in fee, or they were not given an adequate explanation of its purpose. Appellants testified the fee was to recover some of the “front-end” costs of moving in a new tenant; that it was not considered when calculating rent increases pursuant to the local rent control ordinance; that they charged the increment rather than raising the security deposit or creating a cleaning fee deposit because that would have required them to account to the tenants; that the $65 fee was constant regardless of the size of the apartment; that advertising brochures describing rental fees did not disclose the $65 first month’s increment; and that the $65 fee was differentiated from rent in internal accounting records. Appellants analogized it to the $50 transfer fee: *690

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text