Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Several general law cities in California challenged the constitutionality of a state law, Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), which requires local agencies to ministerially approve two-unit housing projects and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones. The cities argued that SB 9 usurps their authority over local land use and zoning, imposes a uniform approach that disregards local needs and conditions, and is not reasonably related to its stated goal of ensuring access to affordable housing, as it does not mandate affordability for new units.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the cities’ complaint and the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and demurrer. The trial court concluded that, as general law cities, the plaintiffs could not invoke the municipal affairs doctrine under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, which provides certain protections only to charter cities. The court also found that the cities failed to identify any constitutional provision that SB 9 violated and determined there was no reasonable likelihood that the complaint could be amended to state a viable cause of action. Judgment was entered in favor of the state, and the cities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that general law cities are not protected by the municipal affairs doctrine and must yield to conflicting state law. The court further found that the cities did not identify a constitutional right that SB 9 violated and failed to show that the statute was unconstitutional on its face or as applied. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, as no viable claim could be stated. View "City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State" on Justia Law

Arron and Arthur Benedetti, along with the Estate of Willie Benedetti, challenged a provision in Marin County’s amended local coastal program (LCP) that allows owners of certain farmland to build additional residential units only if they record a restrictive covenant. This covenant requires the owner of the new units to be actively and directly engaged in agriculture, either through direct involvement in commercial agriculture or by leasing the property to a commercial agricultural producer. The Benedettis, who inherited farmland and sought to build a second residence, argued that this provision was facially unconstitutional, claiming it violated the nexus and proportionality requirements established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, and infringed upon their substantive due process rights by compelling them to work in a specific occupation.The Marin County Superior Court initially ruled that the Benedettis could not bring a facial takings challenge under Nollan/Dolan and, applying rational basis review, denied their petition and complaint based on their due process theory. The trial court sustained a demurrer to one cause of action and denied relief on the others, leading to the Benedettis’ appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the Benedettis could raise a facial Nollan/Dolan claim. However, the court found that the restrictive covenant requirement had a sufficient nexus and rough proportionality to the county’s interest in preserving agricultural land and did not violate substantive due process. The court applied rational basis review and determined the provision was reasonably related to a legitimate legislative goal. The judgment of the Marin County Superior Court was affirmed. View "Benedetti v. County of Marin" on Justia Law

A developer purchased a property in Alameda that had previously been used by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard as housing for military personnel and their families. The property, containing about 150 residential units, was vacant and in disrepair for over a decade before the developer acquired it in 2018. The developer extensively renovated the units and related infrastructure, spending significant sums, and obtained a new certificate of occupancy from the City in 2020. The developer then began renting the units to the general public.After the renovations, a dispute arose regarding whether the renovated units were subject to the City of Alameda’s Rent Control Ordinance. The City’s Rent Program Director determined that the units were not exempt from local rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, reasoning that the property had been used for residential purposes prior to the issuance of the new certificate of occupancy. An administrative hearing officer upheld this determination. The developer challenged this decision in the Superior Court of Alameda County, which ruled in favor of the developer, finding that the exemption applied and that the renovated property qualified as new residential housing stock.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that under the Costa-Hawkins Act, as interpreted by prior decisions such as NCR Properties, LLC v. City of Berkeley and Burien, LLC v. Wiley, the exemption from local rent control for properties with a certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995, does not apply if the property had prior residential use. The court concluded that the extensive renovations and the period of vacancy did not transform the property into new housing for purposes of the exemption. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "CP VI Admirals Cove, LLC v. City of Alameda" on Justia Law

An elderly plaintiff with significant disabilities inherited her home and, facing a tax sale due to unpaid property taxes, responded to a flyer offering help. She met with the defendant, who had her sign documents that transferred ownership of her home to him, allegedly under the pretense of providing a loan. The documents did not provide for any payment to the plaintiff, only that the defendant would pay the back taxes. The plaintiff later attempted to cancel the transaction, believing it had been voided when the defendant returned her documents and she received no loan. Several years later, the defendant served her with an eviction notice, prompting her to file suit alleging fraud, undue influence, financial elder abuse, and other claims, seeking cancellation of the transfer and damages.The case was heard in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The defendant, representing himself, filed an answer and a cross-complaint, asserting that he had purchased the property and that the plaintiff had lived rent-free for years. The litigation was marked by extensive discovery disputes, with the plaintiff filing nine motions to compel and for sanctions due to the defendant’s repeated failures to provide timely and adequate discovery responses, appear for depositions, and pay court-ordered sanctions. The court issued incremental sanctions, including monetary and issue sanctions, before ultimately imposing terminating sanctions by striking the defendant’s answer and cross-complaint, leading to a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing terminating sanctions after the defendant’s persistent and willful noncompliance with discovery orders. The court also found that the plaintiff’s complaint provided sufficient notice of damages, and that the award of damages and attorney fees was supported by substantial evidence. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all respects. View "Atlas v. Davidyan" on Justia Law

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