In the recent case of Chun v. Del Cid, the Court of Appeal reviewed the nature of a residential building that was subdivided so Tenants could rent separate bedrooms. Salaverria rented one bedroom, and the Del Cids together rented one or more separate bedrooms. Landlord brought an unlawful detainer action against the Tenants.
The sole issue was whether the Property fell within the single–family dwelling exemption to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles (Ordinance). (§ 151.00 et seq.) If the Property fell within the exemption, the Ordinance did not control the landlord-tenant relationship.
The exemption applies to a “detached dwelling containing only one dwelling unit,” a “dwelling unit” being defined as “two or more rooms, one of which is a kitchen, designed for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping purposes.”
A “family” means “one or more persons living together in a dwelling unit, with common access to, and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas within the dwelling unit.”
The Property was originally constructed in 1908 as a single–family dwelling. However, in 1946, the Property was expanded to accommodate 7 households in 10 rooms.
Currently the Property has 9 bedrooms, at least two bathrooms, and one kitchen. Four of the bedrooms are being separately rented to four separate households. The tenants share access to the bathrooms and kitchen, but they do not have access to each other’s rooms. Rather, each tenant has exclusive use of his or her own bedroom, which is equipped with a lock to exclude others.
On these facts, the trial court ruled that the Property does not meet the definition criteria of the single–family dwelling exemption. On the Landlord’s appeal, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court reversed.
The Court of Appeal held that regardless of the original design and use of the Property, its current configuration (nine bedrooms, two bathrooms, and one kitchen) and current use for occupancy (four individual bedrooms rented to separate households who share the kitchen and bathrooms, but who alone have exclusive access to and use of their rooms) does not qualify for the single–family dwelling exemption from the Ordinance, because it is not a “detached dwelling containing only one dwelling unit” within the meaning of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the dwelling was subject to the Ordinance which was enacted to protect individuals in landlord– tenant relationships: it protects tenants from excessive rent increases and provides a defense to eviction, while at the same time providing landlords with a fair and reasonable return on their investments.
The Ordinance applies to any rental unit in a building for which a certificate of occupancy was issued before October 1978, unless it falls within an enumerated exemption. Landlords are prohibited from evicting tenants except for specific reasons stated in the Ordinance. To assure compliance, violations of the Ordinance may be raised as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action.
The Ordinance provides that, since July 1979, no landlord may demand or accept rent for a rental unit without first procuring and serving on the tenant or displaying in a conspicuous place a valid written registration statement from the Housing Department or its designee.
Since April 30, 1983, the Ordinance has also provided that landlords may not demand or accept rent for a rental unit without first serving a copy of a valid registration or annual renewal statement on the tenant of that rental unit.
Landlord argued, and the appellate division appeared to agree, that in determining whether a structure qualifies for the single–family dwelling exemption, the original design of the structure controls–once a single–family dwelling, always a single–family dwelling–regardless of changes to configuration and use. The Court of Appeal disagreed.
Based on the interlocking definitions of “dwelling unit” and “family,” and because Tenants (regardless of familial relationship) did not have common access to and use of all living areas that form the purported dwelling unit, they did not comprise one family within the meaning of the Ordinance.
LESSONS:
1. Careful review of the Ordinance is essential to determine if a dwelling falls within the definitions in the Ordinance.
2. Subdividing a single family residence into separately rented bedrooms may cause the dwelling to fall within the Ordinance.
3. Given the significant restrictions in the Ordinance on the Landlord - Tenant relationship, Landlords should consider renting dwellings that do not fall within the Ordinance.
No comments:
Post a Comment