DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 61–80 of 894 results

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

In November 1989, Kavanau applied to the Board for permission to raise rents, seeking an average increase of about $474 per month for nine of the ten units. In April 1990, the Board’s hearing examiner determined that Kavanau was...

§ 1805

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

...Code, § 1950.5, subd. (c); Santa Monica Rent Bd. Regs., reg. No. 14002(b).) In general, rents increase over time. In contrast, a security deposit is usually paid once and does not increase. (Civ. Code, § 1950.5, subd. (c); Rent...

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

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

...It also permits consideration of property maintenance patterns in determining allowable increases. A change in general economic conditions, such as an increase in taxes, inflation, or the Consumer Price Index, might indicate that a general rent increase is in order...

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

...It balanced landlords’ interests in recouping their increased costs against tenants’ interests in avoiding sudden, large rent increases. Of course, in certain circumstances—such as during times of very high inflation—a 12 percent limit on rent increases might be...

Rich v. Schwab, 162 Cal. App. 3d 739 (1984)

Rich v. Schwab, 162 Cal. App. 3d 739 (1984) California state

...Code, § 1942.5, subd. (c)) shows Landlord may have increased rent to retaliate against Tenants’ rent control efforts. Two days after the first rent moratorium, Landlord noticed a 13 percent rent increase. Four days after agreeing, under City pressure, to...

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

Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (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, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)

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

To establish an erosion of net operating income, and therefore entitlement to a rent increase, a landlord may present evidence of an increase in operating expenses. Under the Rent Board Regulations, operating expenses include capital improvement costs (Rent Bd. Regs...

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

Thus, the majority’s holding that increasing the rents allowed for plaintiff’s rental units is an adequate alternative to an action in inverse condemnation, rests entirely on speculation that plaintiff will someday recover the amount he allegedly lost from...

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

...4103A) or that base rent was unusually low (Rent Bd. Regs., reg. No. 4103B). A landlord is entitled not only to maintain 1978 net *770operating income (Rent Bd. Regs., reg. No. 4102), but also to petition for rent increases that...

Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023)

Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023) California state

...Plaintiff increased the security deposit five years into Foster’s lease of the premises and during the pandemic, after Foster had not paid rent for at least two years.8 Plaintiff provided no evidence that when rent was increased in...

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

This assumption assumes in turn that rental increases sufficient to offset plaintiff’s loss are permissible under Civil Code sections 1954.50 through 1954.53, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act which, while abrogating local limits on rent increases for...

§ 1805

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

hearings, since landlords . . . could individually pursue rent increases ”. . . .” (Italics added; see pt. II.D.2.b., *613 post

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 other rent increase provision at issue is paragraph 4.4, referred to in this litigation as the "catch-up" provision. Paragraph 4.4 provides for rent increases near the end of a lease term as follows: "Additional Increase in...

S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2022)

S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2022) California state

5 Plaintiffs’ argument that the amendment makes it unlawful to increase a tenant’s rent to amounts “substantially in excess of market rates for comparable units” or in any amount within “six months after an attempt to recover possession of...

Section 1942

Kriz v. Taylor, 92 Cal. App. 3d 302 (1979) California state

A demand for an increase in rent must be made by written notice (§ 827). The notice requirements for changing the terms of a tenancy (such as increasing rent) and terminating the tenancy are the same. (Compare § 827 with § 1946.) 9

Section 1805

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

...It also permits consideration of property maintenance patterns in determining allowable increases. A change in general economic conditions, such as an increase in taxes, inflation, or the Consumer Price Index, might indicate that a general rent increase is in order...