Court Talk

From the U.S. Supreme Court to the Superior Court

by Clifford E. Fried

Editor’s Note: This month, the magazine introduces a new column, published thrice annually, covering the landlord-tenant legal cases that are winding there way through the courts.

Property owners in San Francisco will never get a fair shake from the Board of Supervisors. Ever since the Rent Ordinance was passed in 1979, additional legislation has only further eroded property rights and increased the burden on landlords.

While state lawmakers have provided some relief by way of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and the Ellis Act, state laws strongly favor tenant interests over those of the property owner. However, there is another remedy available to aggrieved property owners.

The courts are the best bet for battered and burdened landlords. As will be shown in this and future articles on cases from the courts, landlords have fared well before judges. Judges are, though not completely, free from the complicated political influences that shape the laws at the Board of Supervisors and in the state capitol.

Following is a summary of recent court cases that will have an impact on San Francisco landlords and tenants. Many of the decisions are quite favorable to landlords.

HUD v. Rucker
Congress passed a law that gave public housing agencies the mandate necessary to respond to problems associated with drug activity in order to ensure decent housing for low-income tenants. The United States Supreme Court upheld the law saying that public housing tenants can be evicted for drug activity by their relatives and visitors even if the tenants do not know about the activity.

The case is significant because so few landlord-tenant issues ever reach the highest court of our land. The decision might also lead to similar legislation here in California and San Francisco. Such legislation would provide some relief to landlords who are afraid to evict drug users and dealers because of eviction complexities related to rent control laws. If challenged, such laws would find support in the above-mentioned Supreme Court decision. Don’t wait, however, for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to pass anti-drug housing legislation any time soon; such legislation will have to come from state lawmakers.

Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants’ Association
The California Supreme Court has ruled that a tenants’ association does not have a constitutional right to distribute its newsletter in a privately owned apartment complex. In this case originating from San Francisco, a tenants’ association claimed a right under the California Constitution to “speak freely, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects.”

The landlord brought an action in the San Francisco Superior Court to enjoin the association from distributing its leaflets in the building. The superior court denied the request for injunction on First Amendment grounds. The First District Court of Appeal (in San Francisco) reversed the decision, which was upheld by the California Supreme Court in a narrow 4 - 3 decision. Based upon the close vote, we can expect other similar cases to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in the future.

Should San Francisco landlords now attempt to stifle free speech and tenant associations within their buildings? No. The California Supreme Court made it clear that the state constitution continues to provide tenants with the right to speak freely. The facts of the case will mostly have a positive impact on large apartment complexes that are not open to the public. (SFAA member and Director Nancy Lenvin represented the landlord in this case.)

Artal v. Sharp
A tenant signed a lease that provided she alone would occupy her San Francisco apartment. The tenant subsequently married and her husband moved in. The landlord brought an action to evict based upon a breach of the lease. The San Francisco Superior Court ruled against the landlord on public policy grounds.

On appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, the tenant argued that the decision should be upheld because the San Francisco Housing Code makes it unlawful to refuse to rent to a family. That same code defines “family” as one or more people, related or not, who live together. The appellate division reversed the trial court and held that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act preempts San Francisco’s Housing Code because the act was intended to fully regulate the field of discrimination in housing. With such intent, San Francisco’s own code may not contradict state law. State law prohibits discrimination based upon familial status; San Francisco requires inquiry into familial status and therefore contradicts state law.

The impact this case will have in the future is unclear. However, this case is a good example of how improper laws, passed by our Board of Supervisors, can be successfully challenged in the courts. (SFAA member Steven S. Rosenthal in this case represented the landlord.)

Chau v. Superior Court of San Francisco
The percentage of ownership interest required to do an Owner Move-In (OMI) eviction has been uncertain for the past few years. Is it 25 percent or 50 percent (or 10 percent)? If you look at the Rent Ordinance, it states 25 percent. Proposition G, passed in November 1998, set the percentage at 25 percent. Just prior to the initiative being passed by the voters, our Board of Supervisors increased the percentage to 50 percent (Bierman Legislation). Did Proposition G intend to change the percentage back to 25 percent?

Last year, a tenant challenged an OMI eviction claiming that the landlord’s 33 percent ownership interest was insufficient under the Rent Ordinance. The trial court denied the challenge. The tenant then appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. Rather than deciding on the merits, the court indicated since the City was not a party to the eviction action, the court could not compel a revision of the Rent Ordinance. The implication is that the current requirement is 25 percent unless and until some tenant sues the city to revise the ordinance.

The bottom line is that the current requirement is 25 percent, but there will still be uncertainty regarding the actual percentage requirement and no guarantee that 25 percent will be sufficient. If possible, landlords should try to acquire a 50 percent interest before evicting for owner move-in purposes. (My law office represented the landlord in this case).

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the SF Apartment Magazine. Clifford E. Fried is with Wiegel & Fried, LLP (415) 552-8230.
© Copyright 2002.