Santa Monica’s Rent Control Board Is Fined for Contempt

Santa Monica’s Rent Control Board has been fined $20,000 for violating a 1983 injunction forbidding the board from holding hearings on disputes over excessively high rent, but a request by several landlords that the board’s chairwoman be jailed was turned down.

“No jail this time . . . but if they persist in violating the injunction, then there will be serious consideration for imprisonment,” Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Laurence J. Rittenband said.

The dispute hinges on a 6-year-old court ruling that found that the rent board had assumed the powers of the judiciary when it held hearings and assessed penalties against a landlord who charged excessive rents. In 1985, a state Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, and the case is pending before the California Supreme Court. Rittenband said he can impose the contempt ruling while awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Thomas A. Nitti, an attorney for the landlords, said he was content with the fine against the board. “It sends a message that the board has to follow court orders,” he said.

Susan Davis, the chairwoman of the rent board, was out of town and not available for comment.

Joel Martin Levy, a staff attorney for the rent board, said the contempt finding was inappropriate.

“The board believed in good faith that it was doing what it was required to do under the City Charter and under state law,” he said. “I’m confident that this order is wrong.”

Levy said he will appeal the fine and contempt finding. He said that the state Petris Act adopted in 1986 required all cities with rent control ordinances to certify rents citywide.

In 1987, during a yearlong effort to determine rent levels, Levy said, the board discovered that some landlords had charged too much. The board, under provisions of the City Charter, blocked those landlords from raising rents until they returned the excessive rent to tenants.

“We all have the utmost respect for the judicial system,” board member Wayne Bauer said. “We never adopted a contemptuous attitude.” Bauer said it would have been “irresponsible” not to have considered the part of the law that prevents rent increases for non-complying landlords.

Bauer said that requiring landlords to return excessive rents to tenants is not a penalty, but rather an opportunity for landlords to comply and thus obtain the annual rent increase allowed by the board.

The board escaped a similar contempt of court charge in 1986 after a landlord tried to appeal an excessive-rent complaint that had been heard before the injunction became final. The board, however, was ordered to pay $750, essentially to cover attorney fees.