Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 41–60 of 894 results

§ 1805

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

The Board may not increase a rent ceiling because the landlord has a reasonably foreseeable negative cash flow. (RCL, § 1805(f), (g).) It must not increase rent if the landlord has not complied substantially with applicable state and local law...

§ 1094

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

In mid-September 1999, Cobb notified Passalacqua that, effective November 1, 1999, the rent would increase to $1,500 per month, in accordance with the Costa-Hawkins Act. Passalacqua then petitioned the Rent Board for arbitration on the grounds that...

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

The Rent Board Regulations protect tenants from sudden, large rent increases by delaying rent increases that would otherwise be permissible. At the time the Court of Appeal decided Kavanau I, a landlord could not increase rent more than 12 percent...

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

Because the annual rent increase provision and catch-up provision in the lease could result in substantial rent increases, the park offered tenants whose rent was about to increase rent reductions through a program it called the Emergency Rent Stabilization...

section 1942

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

In this proceeding, which was separate from the litigation in which they contested the validity of the rent increases, the tenants brought a class action in which they alleged, among other causes of action, that the March 1981 rent increase...

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993)

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993) California state

...462 [511 A.2d 1273, 1276] [where there is no provision to factor in an increase lost because of a cap on rental increases, the cap “would cause a snowball effect of losses that might not be recouped”].) 5

§ 1094

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

On this evidence the Rent Board could find that Passalacqua was an existing tenant when Cobb notified him in September 1999 that his rent would be increased effective November 1, 1999. Therefore, the CostaHawkins Act did not provide authority for...

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993)

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993) California state

By applying the 12 percent cap, however, the hearing examiner reduced Kavanau’s first year rent increase from $35,000 to $5,184, with the balance of the $35,000 to be implemented over eight years of annualized increases, each...

Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)

Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022) California state

...The Rent Control Dispute In early 2013 Hirschfield notified Cohen of a rent increase to $5,300 a month, which she did not dispute. In June 2013 Hirschfield notified Cohen of another rent increase to $5,800 per month. Cohen...

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993)

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993) California state

...565] [approving a cap on yearly increases because the regulation at issue permitted exceptions for “extraordinary circumstances” and empowered the hearing officer to consider all “relevant factors” in determining whether a rent increase in excess of the cap was justified...

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993)

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 19 Cal. App. 4th 730 (1993) California state

...On April 7, 1990, the hearing examiner issued his decision, with findings that Kavanau was entitled to a $35,000 increase under the MNOI formula. Kavanau’s rental increases were nevertheless limited by the 12 percent cap, to a total...

Section 1805

Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985) California state

...is to alleviate the hardship caused by this serious housing shortage by establishing a Rent Control Board empowered to regulate rents in the City of Santa Monica so that rents will not be increased unreasonably and so that landlords will...

Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (1998)

Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (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...

Section 1805

Sterling v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 168 Cal. App. 3d 176 (1985) California state

...is to alleviate the hardship caused by this serious housing shortage by establishing a Rent Control Board empowered to regulate rents in the City of Santa Monica so that rents will not be increased unreasonably and so that landlords will...

Section 37

Golden Gateway Center v. San Francisco Residential Stabilization, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 332 (1999) California state

San Francisco’s rent control ordinance, first adopted in 1979, was necessitated by what the board of supervisors perceived as a housing crisis in the City and County of San Francisco. The crisis was caused by uncontrolled rent increases which...