Legal Opinion

Borten v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 14, 2006No. B181840PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL, J.

In Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 816 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 441], we held that the Santa Monica Rent Control Law requires landlords to subsidize rent for those who reside principally in their rent controlled units, but not the rent of those who use their rental units for other purposes. We upheld the Santa Monica Rent Control Board’s regulation. 3304, which permits a landlord to petition the board for a determination that a tenant is not using a rental unit as his *1487primary residence, which determination (if favorable to the landlord) entitles him to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Borten v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API