HomeDevelopments
Court Decisions
The McConnell Report
Increasingly, owners are using the courts to defend their right to conduct business free of excessive regulatory practices. This page monitors important judicial opinions that may prove useful to individuals and groups who are considering the judicial option.
| HUD vs. Rucker / OHA vs. Rucker | |
| In this important decision, the Supreme Court acts to uphold discretionary
no fault evictions from federal housing authority projects where the tenant's
relatives or guest use drugs on or near the premises. The Court finds
that Congress' concern about the health and safety of tenants prevailed
over the hardship that may be faced by "innocent tenants" who may
not have known their relatives or guests were engaged in
illegal drug activity. For full text see:
HUD
vs. Rucker | |
| San Francisco Law Restricting Tenancies In Common Is Illegal | |
| A Superior Court Judge ruled that SF's Law
limiting the number of units that could be converted to TIC's was illegal
because it conflicted with state law. See a report on the case in the
San Francisco Chronicle:
San Francisco Housing Law
| |
| Danekas vs. San Francisco Rent Board | |
|
In Danekas
vs. SF Rent Bd. 12/28/01 CA1/5 the First District Court of
Appeals (San Francisco) upheld a SF law that restricts the ability of
landlords to enforce no sublet clauses. The court concludes, in part, as
follows, . . . we conclude the Rent Board regulation challenged in this case does not substantially impair contract rights. It is "moderate and restrained," eliminating contractual prohibitions to sublet only in carefully tailored circumstances: when the landlord had agreed to a rental with multiple tenants, and one of the tenants departs, but only if the replacement tenant meets the lessor's reasonable standards. In addition, revolving tenancies are not permitted; at least one of the original tenants must be in residence. For the full text see: Danekas vs. San Francisco Rent Board |
| Ellis Act Victory | |
|
Drouet vs. The Superior Court of San Francisco In a major victory for property owners, the First District Court of Appeals (San Francisco) upheld the right to go out of business under the Ellis Act and declared that in unlawful detainer proceedings properly commenced under the Ellis Act, a tenant may not raise an affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction to prevent displacement, but retains the right to an independent action for damages under the retaliatory eviction statute. This is very important given the spread of laws that prevent owners from opting to use their properties for personal occupancy or occupancy by family members. Tenants preserve the right to file a suit claiming retaliatory eviction, but in most cases that is a huge mountain to climb. It is easy to set up a defense and then demand a settlement. It is not easy to file an affirmative lawsuit. The Law offices of Andrew Zachs of San Francisco (lead attorneys) and Susan Luten of Berkeley (amicus brief) are to be congratulated. |
| DeZerega vs. Meggs | |
|
Like the Cabinda case in southern California, DeZerega vs. Meggs (1st District Court of Appeals in San Francisco) held that owners could set the initial and subsequent rents for tenancies that started after January 1, 1999. It also stated, however, that under certain circumstances, subtenants and roommates may remain even after the master tenant has departed. And if the original lease began before 1999, this may permanently prevent Costa-Hawkins increases. |
Back to the Top