Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

A property owner challenged an annual assessment levied by a city for the maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements within a maintenance district. The assessment, originally set at $196.23 per residential lot in 1996, had increased to $300 per lot by the 2022–2023 tax year. The property owner argued that this increase violated Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment that restricts local governments’ ability to impose or increase taxes, assessments, and fees without voter approval. The city had not submitted the assessment to voters after Proposition 218’s passage, asserting that the assessment was exempt from Proposition 218’s requirements as a preexisting assessment for certain public services.The Superior Court of California, County of Solano, found in favor of the city. The court determined that the assessment was exempt from Proposition 218 and that the increase to $300 did not constitute an “increase” under the law because it did not exceed a range established before Proposition 218 took effect. Judgment was entered for the city, and the property owner appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the assessment had been “increased” within the meaning of Proposition 218 and the implementing statutes because the per-lot rate was higher than the rate in effect when Proposition 218 became law. The court rejected the city’s argument that a flat per-lot assessment does not involve a “rate” and found that the statutory definition of “rate” includes a per-parcel amount. The court also concluded that only ranges adopted in compliance with Proposition 218’s procedures could shield subsequent increases from voter approval requirements. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Thacker v. City of Fairfield" on Justia Law

The case concerns an agreement between the City of Fairfield and the Solano Irrigation District, initiated at the request of Solano County, to treat raw water for a new mixed-use development in Middle Green Valley, an unincorporated area outside Fairfield’s city limits. Under the agreement, the City would treat water supplied by the District and return it as potable water, while the District would handle distribution, operations, maintenance, and billing. The development, approved by the County, includes residential units and preserves a significant portion of land for agriculture and open space. The City asserted that providing such water treatment services outside its boundaries was consistent with its practices and rights.After the City Council approved the agreement, the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee filed a petition in the Solano County Superior Court, arguing that the agreement violated the City’s 2002 General Plan and California’s Planning and Zoning Law by providing municipal services for development outside the city’s urban limit line. The Superior Court granted the petition, finding the agreement inconsistent with the General Plan and invalidating it.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed whether state law required the agreement to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and, if so, whether the City’s determination of consistency was reasonable. The appellate court held that California law does not require such agreements to be consistent with a city’s general plan unless specifically mandated by statute, which was not the case here. Even assuming a consistency requirement, the court found the City’s determination that the agreement was consistent with its General Plan to be reasonable. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s judgment, thereby upholding the agreement. View "Solano County Orderly Growth Committee v. City of Fairfield" on Justia Law

A group of single-family residential (SFR) water customers challenged the City of San Diego’s tiered water rate structure, which imposed higher rates for increased water usage, arguing that these rates exceeded the proportional cost of service attributable to their parcels as required by California Constitution article XIII D, section 6(b)(3) (enacted by Proposition 218). The City’s water system serves a large population and divides customers into several classes, but only SFR customers were subject to tiered rates; other classes paid uniform rates. The City’s rates were based on cost-of-service studies using industry-standard methodologies, including “base-extra capacity” and “peaking factors,” but the plaintiffs contended these methods did not accurately reflect the actual cost of providing water at higher usage tiers.The Superior Court of San Diego County certified the case as a class action and held a bifurcated trial. In the first phase, the court found that the City failed to demonstrate, with substantial evidence, that its tiered rates for SFR customers complied with section 6(b)(3), concluding the rates were not based on the actual cost of service at each tier but rather on usage budgets and conservation goals. The court also found the City lacked sufficient data to justify its allocation of costs to higher tiers and that the rate structure discriminated against SFR customers compared to other classes. In the second phase, the court awarded the class a refund for overcharges, offset by undercharges, and ordered the City to implement new, compliant rates.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court’s judgment with directions. The appellate court held that the City bore the burden of proving its rates did not exceed the proportional cost of service and that the applicable standard was not mere reasonableness but actual cost proportionality, subject to independent judicial review. The court found substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the City’s tiered rates were not cost-based and thus violated section 6(b)(3). The court also upheld class certification and the method for calculating the refund, and directed the trial court to amend the judgment to comply with newly enacted Government Code section 53758.5, which affects the manner of refunding overcharges. View "Patz v. City of San Diego" on Justia Law

A tenant entered into a lease for the lower level of a residential property in Los Angeles in 2015. In 2016, the property was purchased by a new landlord, who made some improvements at the tenant’s request. In 2018, the landlord sought to reclaim the unit for personal use and offered the tenant compensation to vacate, but the tenant refused, alleging harassment and claiming entitlement to substantial back rent. Subsequently, city agencies issued and later rescinded orders regarding the legality of the unit, with the landlord providing documentation to resolve the issues. Despite this, the tenant stopped paying rent, citing the unit’s alleged illegality, and remained in possession for over a year without payment. The landlord attempted to evict the tenant, provided relocation payments, and ultimately the tenant vacated after cashing a relocation check.The tenant filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asserting multiple claims including violation of statutory and municipal code provisions, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. The landlord filed a cross-complaint for unpaid rent and related claims. After pretrial motions were resolved, the case proceeded to a jury trial, where the tenant’s claim focused on the alleged illegality of the unit and the landlord’s claim centered on breach of contract for unpaid rent. The jury found in favor of the landlord on both the tenant’s claim and the landlord’s cross-claim, awarding the landlord $14,700 in unpaid rent. The trial court denied the tenant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that it was proper for the jury to determine the legality of the unit as a factual issue, and that the landlord was not precluded from contesting the unit’s legality or from introducing evidence from city agencies. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the landlord. View "Emmons v. Jesso" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a long-term tenant of a triplex, entered into a lease in 1995 and was paying below-market rent. In 2020, the property was acquired by a new owner, Connie, LLC, which hired a property management company. The new owners and the management company misrepresented to their attorney that the plaintiff was a property manager receiving discounted rent, and, based on this misrepresentation, concluded that the rent control protections of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 did not apply. Relying on this advice, they terminated the plaintiff’s supposed management role and raised his rent to market rate, which the plaintiff paid for 11 months. The plaintiff later learned that the rent increase was illegal under the Act and sued to recover the overpaid rent, asserting, among other claims, a cause of action under Penal Code section 496 for receiving stolen property.The Superior Court of Orange County conducted a jury trial. After the close of evidence, the court granted a directed verdict against the plaintiff on all claims except for breach of contract, finding that the evidence did not support a claim under section 496 because the defendants’ conduct was based on a mistake rather than theft. The court entered a nominal judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on the contract claim.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed whether the directed verdict on the section 496 claim was proper. The appellate court held that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find that the defendants’ receipt of the illegally increased rent constituted receiving property obtained by false pretenses, as defined by section 496, and that the issue should have been submitted to the jury. The court reversed the judgment as to the section 496 claim and remanded for further proceedings, awarding the plaintiff his costs on appeal. View "Johnson v. Connie, LLC" on Justia Law

A mobilehome park owner challenged the constitutionality of Civil Code section 798.30.5, which limits annual rent increases for certain mobilehome parks located within the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities in California. The statute, effective from January 1, 2022, to January 1, 2030, restricts rent increases to the lower of 3 percent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 5 percent, and limits the number of rent increases within a 12-month period. The owner alleged that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it lacks a procedural mechanism for property owners to seek rent adjustments to ensure a fair return, arguing this omission violates due process and results in an uncompensated taking.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the owner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the absence of a process to seek exceptions to the rent ceiling violated due process and rendered the statute unconstitutional. The court rejected the owner’s takings argument but concluded that the statute’s plain language was undisputed and denied the State’s request for leave to amend its answer, determining that any amendment would be futile.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the owner failed to demonstrate that the statute is facially unconstitutional, clarifying that a fair return adjustment mechanism is not required for all rent control laws to be constitutional, but may be necessary only if the law is confiscatory in its application. The court also found that the State’s general denial in its answer placed the owner’s standing to sue at issue, precluding judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the judgment in favor of the owner. View "Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State" on Justia Law

A mobilehome park owner challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that limits annual rent increases for certain mobilehome parks located within the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities. The owner argued that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it lacks a procedural mechanism allowing property owners to seek rent increases above the statutory cap to ensure a fair return, which the owner claimed is required by the California and U.S. Constitutions. The owner asserted that the absence of such a mechanism results in a violation of due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against uncompensated takings.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the owner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the statute’s failure to provide a process for seeking exceptions to the rent cap violated due process and rendered the statute unconstitutional. The court rejected the owner’s takings argument but concluded that the legal issue was dispositive and denied the State’s request for leave to amend its answer. Judgment was entered in favor of the owner, and the State appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the owner failed to establish that the statute is facially unconstitutional, as the relevant legal precedents do not require a fair return adjustment mechanism in every rent control law. The court also found that the State’s general denial in its answer placed the owner’s standing at issue, precluding judgment on the pleadings. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the absence of a fair return adjustment mechanism does not, by itself, render the statute facially unconstitutional, and that the State’s answer raised material issues that should have prevented judgment on the pleadings. View "Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State" on Justia Law

The dispute arose when a property owner, after selling his San Diego County home and purchasing property in Trinity County, sought to transfer the base year value of his former property to his new one. In 2009, he sued the Trinity County Board of Supervisors to compel such a transfer under California law. The parties settled in 2012, agreeing that if the County later adopted an ordinance or if a change in law required it, the owner would be entitled to retroactively transfer the base year value. In 2020, after the passage of Proposition 19, which expanded the ability to transfer base year values between counties, the owner requested the transfer from the county assessor, who denied the request.The Superior Court of Trinity County held a bench trial and found in favor of the property owner on his breach of contract claims, ordering the County to specifically perform the settlement agreement and awarding damages. The court rejected the County’s arguments that the agreement was limited to intra-county transfers and that the Board lacked authority to bind the assessor. The court also found that the new law triggered the County’s obligations under the agreement.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, concluded that the Board of Supervisors did not have the authority to direct the county assessor in setting or transferring base year values, as this is a duty assigned by law to the assessor, an elected official independent of the Board’s control. The court held that the 2012 settlement agreement was void and unenforceable because it exceeded the Board’s legal authority. As a result, the judgment on the breach of contract claims was reversed, while the remainder of the judgment was affirmed. The County was awarded its costs on appeal. View "Sceper v. County of Trinity" on Justia Law

A plaintiff sought to build a single-family home on his residential parcel in El Dorado County, California. The county required him to pay a $23,420 traffic impact mitigation (TIM) fee as a condition for obtaining a building permit. The plaintiff paid the fee under protest and subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the fee as an unlawful taking of property under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.The Superior Court of El Dorado County dismissed the plaintiff’s federal takings claim without leave to amend and denied his petition for a writ of mandate. The plaintiff appealed, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, relying on established California law that the Nollan/Dolan test did not apply to legislatively imposed impact fees. The California Supreme Court denied review.The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the Nollan/Dolan test applies to both legislative and administrative land-use exactions. The Supreme Court vacated the California Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.On remand, the California Court of Appeal applied the Nollan/Dolan test to the TIM fee. The court concluded that the fee had an essential nexus to the county’s legitimate interest in reducing traffic congestion from new development. Additionally, the court found that the fee was roughly proportional to the traffic impacts attributable to the plaintiff’s proposed development. The court held that the TIM fee did not constitute an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment and affirmed the judgment. View "Sheetz v. County of El Dorado" on Justia Law

In this residential landlord-tenant dispute, the tenants, Michael Gogal and Hildy Baumgartner-Gogal, entered into a lease with landlords, Xinhui Deng and Jianhua Wu. The lease included a clause that capped recoverable litigation costs and attorney’s fees at $1,000. After successfully suing the landlords for retaliatory eviction, the tenants were awarded a monetary judgment and attorney’s fees exceeding the $1,000 cap. They then sought to recover additional litigation costs under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1032(b). The landlords argued that the lease’s $1,000 cap barred any further cost recovery.The Superior Court of San Diego County initially ruled in favor of the landlords, enforcing the $1,000 cap. However, after further arguments from the tenants, the court reversed its decision, allowing the tenants to recover nearly $14,000 in costs. The court reasoned that enforcing the cap would contravene the public policy intent of California Civil Code section 1942.5, which aims to protect tenants from abusive landlord conduct.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The main issue was whether parties to a contract could waive their statutory right to recover litigation costs under section 1032(b) through a pre-dispute agreement. The appellate court concluded that section 1032(b) establishes a default rule allowing prevailing parties to recover costs but does not prohibit parties from waiving this right by agreement. The court found that such waivers are consistent with Civil Code section 3513, which allows the waiver of rights intended for private benefit. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s order, directing it to strike the tenants’ memorandum of costs, thereby enforcing the $1,000 cap stipulated in the lease. View "Gogal v. Deng" on Justia Law