Rolling Hills Adulterers May Face Doghouse, but Not Jail

Adulterers in Rolling Hills still have to worry about divorce lawyers and angry spouses. But they no longer have to fret about fines and jail time if caught sneaking around.

The City Council in the wealthy gated community perched atop the Palos Verdes Peninsula moved late Monday to repeal a 50-year-old ordinance prohibiting adulterous liaisons in beds, buildings, cars and public places.

“I wasn’t even aware the law was there, but we have a voluminous municipal code,” said Frank Hill, the town’s 67-year-old mayor. “At my age, I remember a time when people tried to legislate such things.”

The ordinance was passed in the late 1950s, soon after the city was incorporated. It forbade anyone from arousing, appealing to or gratifying the “lust or passions” of anyone but their spouses.

The rules also made it unlawful for unmarried men and women to meet in any bed, car, structure or public place for the purpose of having sex. Violators faced fines of as much as $250 and as much as three months in jail.

City officials said they know of no residents ever charged with violating the law. And those who live in Rolling Hills say their town isn’t exactly a hotbed of illicit liaisons.

Considered one of California’s most affluent communities, Rolling Hills has a median household income considerably higher than $200,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The city’s population is skewed toward older residents -- 26% are older than 62.

“Look up ‘dead’ in the dictionary,” said resident John Nunn, 60, describing his town. “This is sort of the opposite of wild up here. It has absolutely no party atmosphere at all, unless it’s kids finding their parents not at home and trying to have a party. But that almost never happens.”

The law had been long forgotten until a few weeks ago.

Richard Colyear, 63, stumbled on it while flipping through the municipal code in February in preparation for a City Council candidates forum.

At the event, Colyear asked the candidates if they felt there was a need to remove outdated laws and used the adultery rule as an example.

“I wondered why these members of City Council -- many who have been here for years -- would want to continue it,” Colyear said.

Most of the candidates at the forum expressed little interest in repealing the law, in part because they believed it would take too much time, Colyear said. So he said he was surprised when the repeal proposal turned up on the council’s agenda this week.

City officials in Rolling Hills said taking the law off the books was only a formality because a state law passed in 1962 took such sex-related matters out of the hands of municipalities.

“It’s just a matter of removing a section of code that ... is no longer appropriate,” said Craig Nealis, the city manager.

“I applaud them for doing this,” added Colyear, who has lived in the city for 36 years and laughs loudly whenever he reads the law. “But their enforcement has been weak, as far as I know.”