Westminster : Mobile Home Tenants to Continue Court Fight
Mobile home residents and their attorneys, unhappy with a recent appellate court decision that found the city’s 1981 rent control ordinance unconstitutional, say they plan to pursue the case to the state Supreme Court, if necessary.
Richard Farnell, an attorney for the Los Alisos Mobile Home Owners’ Assn., a tenants’ group, said simply, “We don’t like it.” He called the decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino “a stiff blow to the people in Westminster who have been relying on this badly needed ordinance for the last five years.”
The decision, which will become effective May 30 if not challenged, reverses an earlier ruling in favor of the rent control ordinance. The ordinance was opposed in court by the Westminster Mobile Home Park Owners’ Assn.
Last month, the council repealed the rent control ordinance, and that repeal has been challenged in Superior Court in a separate legal action. Last week a judge issued a temporary restraining order against retroactive provisions of the repeal.
Terry R. Dowdell, an attorney for the park owners’ group, said the appellate court decision “vindicates the constitutional rights of the park owners.” The decision also serves to invalidate the lower court’s restraining order against the repeal, he said.
In finding for the park owners and against the city, the court based its decision on two of many arguments submitted against the ordinance, saying that “we therefore have no need to consider the numerous other grounds of unconstitutionality.”
One of the considerations taken into account is that under the “loosely structured procedures” of the ordinance, it could take more than a year to obtain a rent increase, Dowdell said. The court’s second consideration was the “unlawful delegation of municipal authority” to an arbitrator in rent increase disputes, he said.
At this point, the fate of the lower court’s temporary restraining order against the repeal is arguable, but attorney’s for the tenants concede that they face an uphill fight.
Farnell said his clients will seek a rehearing in the Court of Appeal. If that fails, “we will petition the Supreme Court for a hearing,” he said.
Under the rent control ordinance, which calls for disputes to be settled by an independent arbitrator, there is no need for a decision to take as long as a year, as argued by opponents, Farnell said. “They misread the ordinance,” he said.
Farnell said notice of any rent increase must be received 60 days before it takes effect. The procedure, which includes arbitration, “could begin upon notice and conclude by the time the 60 days are up,” he said.
Dowdell said the appellate court ruling will have considerable ramifications statewide, especially since about two dozen attorneys representing other California cities had filed “friend of the court” statements in support of the Westminster ordinance.
