Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 21–40 of 894 results

Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2

Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2 California state

“California law limits the amount your rent can be increased. See Section 1947.12 of the Civil Code for more information. California law also provides that after all of the tenants have continuously and lawfully occupied the property for 12...

Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5

Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5 California state

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), it is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating...

Section 1805

Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012) California state

Section 1805(c) also authorizes a landlord to petition for a rent increase. Our interpretation of section 1805(e) would apply with equal force in the context of a proceeding on a petition for a rent increase. In other words...

Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)

Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019) California state

The long-term leases contain two rent increase provisions that are at issue in this case. The first rent increase provision at issue is paragraph 4.2, which provides for annual rent increases as follows: "Resident's rent will increase...

§ 1803

Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 441 (2005) California state

The Board has the power, after holding public hearings, to adjust the rent ceiling for all controlled units or for specific categories of units. (RCL, § 1805(a).) The Board must make general annual adjustments to rents to reflect increases or...

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997) California state

...On November 30, 1989, Kavanau applied to defendant Rent Board for rent increases on nine of the ten units in his building. The Rent Board’s hearing examiner determined Kavanau was entitled to rent increases totaling approximately $35,000 per...

§ 1094

Cobb v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Board, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 741 (2002) California state

Under the Rent Ordinance, a new tenancy permits a landlord to increase the rent without the Rent Ordinance limitations on rental increases to an in-place tenant. (S.F. Admin. Code, § 37.3, subd. (d)(1)(A).)

Richman v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (1992)

Richman v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (1992) California state

In the following years, the tenant paid a single monthly amount for rent. The annual notices of rent increase made no distinction between rent and a fee for parking. Then, in 1988, the annual rent increase notice purported to increase...

Richman v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (1992)

Richman v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (1992) California state

In 1988, two tenants on respondent’s property received annual rent increase notices which purported to increase the rent on their units by 3 percent and also to increase a separate parking fee from $15 to $25. The tenants filed...

Richman v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (1992)

Richman v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (1992) California state

...Noting that the purpose of the Rent Control Law was to allow the Board to regulate rents so that rents would not be increased unreasonably and so that landlords would receive no more than a fair return on their investment...

§ 1805

Action Apartment Ass'n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (2002) California state

[individual rent increase is inadequate remedy].) Similarly, at the hearing in the trial court on the Board’s demurrer, the trial judge asked, “Is there any particular hearing procedure to address the amount of interest that is required to be...

section 1942

Rich v. Schwab, 63 Cal. App. 4th 803 (1998) California state

The tenants vigorously contested the reasonableness of the 1980 rent increase as well the March 2, 1981, $80 increase. Eventually, the tenants were successful in establishing that the rent increases were not reasonable and they obtained a judgment against Western...

CABINDA v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 (2000)

CABINDA v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676 (2000) California state

...Specifically, you had served her with two, 3-Day Notices (for reasons other than nonpayment of rent); that you opposed her economic hardship status with respect to the rent increase authorized by increase petition 1-1430; and, she believed you...