Wasatch Property v. Degrate 11/19/02 CA4/1

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2002 » Wasatch Property v. Degrate 11/19/02 CA4/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: D039656

Case Date: 11/19/2002

Preview:Filed 11/19/02

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

WASATCH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SIRIAH DEGRATE, Defendant and Appellant.

D039656

(Super. Ct. No. CA775163)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S. Goodman, Commissioner. Reversed.

Legal Aid Society of San Diego, Inc., Bernadette E. Probus for Defendant and Appellant. Catherine Bishop for National Housing Law Project; R. Mona Tawatao and Erin Farley for Legal Services of Northern California; David Pallack for Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Susanne Browne for Legal Aid Foundation of Los

Angeles; Ilene J. Jacobs for California Rural Legal Assistance as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Kimball, Tirey & St. John, Patricia Tirey and Gary D. Urie for Plaintiff and Respondent. Heidi Poppe for California Apartment Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Siriah Degrate, a Section 81 tenant, appeals a judgment in an unlawful detainer action in favor of Wasatch Property Management (Wasatch).2 Degrate contends 1) the 90-day notice provision of Civil Code section 1954.5353 applies to non-rent control tenancies and 2) the lessor was required to provide notice of good cause in order to terminate the lease. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 26, 2000, Degrate entered into a six-month lease with Creekside Villa Holdings (Owner) that was to terminate on October 31, 2000, but would thereafter be renewed month to month. The lease provides in part: "[D]uring the term of the lease (the

1 Section 8 is a federal program providing financial assistance to low-income tenants and is codified as 42 United States Code section 1437f. 2 Degrate appealed to the appellate division of the superior court, which reversed the trial court. This court ordered transfer of the appeal after the appellate division certified it for transfer. 3 All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise specified. 2

initial term of the lease or any extension term), the owner may only terminate the tenancy [for specified grounds]." On June 1, 2000, the Owner also entered into a Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract with the San Diego Housing Commission. Provision 4 (b)(1) of the HAP contract provides: "The HAP contract terminates automatically if the lease is terminated by the owner or the tenant." On January 31, 2001, Wasatch served notice to Degrate that her tenancy would terminate on March 2, 2001, pursuant to 42 United States Code section 1437f, (d)(1)(B)(ii). On March 1, Wasatch filed an unlawful detainer complaint. On April 11, the court filed its memorandum of decision in favor of Wasatch and on May 1 filed the unlawful detainer judgment. On May 24, the court denied Degrate's motion to vacate the judgment, holding section 1945.535 applies only in a rent control jurisdiction. On August 13, the court filed an order staying execution of the judgment and writ of possession pending appeal. Degrate appealed the judgment to the appellate division of the superior court. On March 6, 2002, the appellate division of the superior court reversed the trial court's decision because it found Wasatch did not provide Degrate with notice of good cause to terminate the lease, as required by the lease and the HAP contract. The appellate division affirmed the trial court's holding that section 1954.535 applies only in a rent control jurisdiction. The same day, the appellate division granted Degrate's motion to certify the matter for transfer to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 63. Transfer of the appeal to this court was ordered on March 21. 3

DISCUSSION I. Section 1954.535 We agree with Degrate's contention that section 1954.535 applies in all jurisdictions, regardless of whether the jurisdiction has enacted a rent control ordinance. "When interpreting a statute our primary task is to determine the Legislature's intent. [Citation.] In doing so we turn first to the statutory language, since the words the Legislature chose are the best indicators of its intent." (Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System (1993) 6 Cal.4th 821, 826.) Section 1954.535 provides as follows: "Where an owner terminates or fails to renew a contract or recorded agreement with a governmental agency that provides for rent limitations to a qualified tenant, the tenant or tenants who were the beneficiaries of the contract or recorded agreement shall be given at least 90 days' written notice of the effective date of the termination and shall not be obligated to pay more than the tenant's portion of the rent, as calculated under the contract or recorded agreement to be terminated, for 90 days following receipt of the notice of termination of nonrenewal of the contract." Because section 1945.535 is placed under the Civil Code chapter entitled "Residential Rent Control," Wasatch and its amicus curiae, California Apartment Association (CAA), contend section 1954.535 is applicable only to rent control jurisdictions. We reject this contention because it is well settled that "[t]itle or chapter headings are unofficial and do not alter the explicit scope, meaning, or intent of a

4

statute." (DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 602; In re Halcomb (1942) 21 Cal.2d 126, 130.) We also reject Wasatch's contention that the placement of section 1954.535 within the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins) (

Download Wasatch Property v. Degrate 11/19/02 CA4/1.pdf