Greening v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 27 March 1997
• Docket Number: No. E016605,E016605
• Citation: 53 Cal.App.4th 1223,62 Cal.Rptr.2d 214
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2296, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4101 Jack W. GREENING et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. Donald JOHNSON et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

Page 214

62 Cal.Rptr.2d 214

53 Cal.App.4th 1223, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2296,

97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4101

Jack W. GREENING et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. Donald JOHNSON et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

No. E016605.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

March 27, 1997.

Review Denied June 25, 1997.

[53 Cal.App.4th 1225] Marvin T. Sawyer, Rialto, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

Terry R. Dowdall, Orange, Combs & Schaertel, Arthur T. Schaertel, Claremont, and William R. Lutz, Glendale, for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents.

RICHLI, Associate Justice.

Donald Johnson, Mary Johnson and Leo Rutherford (Homeowners) reside in the Lake Los Serranos mobilehome park. The park is operated by Jack W. Greening and June L. Greening, doing business as Lake Los Serranos Company (collectively, the Park). The Park brought this action against Homeowners to recover unpaid monthly charges for cable television. Homeowners appeal from summary judgment in favor of the Park, contending the charges were unlawful. We conclude the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ.Code, § 798 et seq.) ¹ does not authorize a park owner to charge residents for nonessential services, such as cable television, which the residents do not want or use. We therefore reverse.

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1991, the Park decided to replace its "master antenna" television system with a cable system. According to the Park manager, the decision was made jointly with the resident association and reflected the consensus of the association. The residents were told the cost would be about $13.95 based on "100% park participation," or $18.95 if there were "less than 100% participation." According to the Park manager, the resident association preferred the "bulk" rate, based on 100 percent participation.

Effective November 8, 1991, the Park entered into a 10-year exclusive agreement with American Cable TV Investors 4, Ltd. (American Cable) ² to provide basic cable television service to all 305 spaces in the Park. The agreement provided that the Park would pay American Cable $10.95, plus tax, per month for each space, "whether or not such units are occupied." In December 1991, the Park notified residents that cable television would be "hooked up to every space in the Park"; that each space would be billed $12.95 per month plus tax; ³ and that "if you refuse to allow the cable to be installed in your coach, you will still be billed for the discounted monthly charge of $12.95 plus tax."

Homeowners own mobilehomes located on spaces leased from the Park under oral month-to-month agreements. Homeowners refused to allow the cable to be connected to their mobilehomes and refused to pay the monthly charges. The Park filed suit against Homeowners, seeking a declaration that the cable television charges were lawful, and damages for Homeowners' failure to pay the charges. Homeowners cross-complained against the Park and Chino Valley Cablevision ⁴ for trespass and unfair business practices. Eventually, Homeowners dismissed Chino Valley Cablevision and dismissed the trespass claim against the Park.

The Park moved for summary judgment on its complaint and, later, on the cross-complaint. The court granted both motions, finding that under the Mobilehome Residency Law, the Park was entitled to charge for the cable television services "whether or not [Homeowners] permit the cable lines to be attached to their mobilehomes or use the utility."

II DISCUSSION

In 1978, the Legislature enacted the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), which extensively regulates the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents. The MRL recognizes that, unlike other renters, mobilehome owners cannot easily relocate if their tenancies are terminated. As the MRL states: "The Legislature finds and declares that, because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes, and the cost of landscaping or lot preparation, it is necessary that the owners of mobilehomes occupied within mobilehome parks be provided with the unique protection from actual or constructive eviction afforded by the provisions of this chapter." (§ 798.55, subd. (a).) Thus, "it is apparent that the Legislature intended to make it very clear that mobile home tenancies are different from the ordinary tenancy and that landlord-tenant relations involving mobile homes are to be treated differently...." (Palmer v. Agee (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 377, 384, 150 Cal.Rptr. 841 [construing predecessor to MRL].)

For example, although "[a] landlord may normally evict a tenant for any reason or for no reason at all" (S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez (1976) 17 Cal.3d 719, 730, 131 Cal.Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721), the MRL permits The Park argues a charge for cable television is permissible as a "utility" charge under section 798.31. The Park relies on section 798.41, which authorizes park management to bill a homeowner separately for "utility service fees and charges assessed by the utility for services provided to or for spaces in the park." (§ 798.41, subd. (a).) Section 798.41, subdivision (a) provides that separately billed utility charges shall not be considered rent for purposes of any local rent control law, as long as the park owner reduces the rent by the amount of the utility charges. Subdivision (a) goes on to state: "Utility services to which this section applies are natural gas or liquid propane gas, electricity, water, cable television, garbage or refuse service, and sewer service." (Italics added.) The Park asserts that the inclusion of cable television in the utilities listed in section 798.41 means cable television charges are considered allowable "utility" fees for purposes of section 798.31.

                termination of a tenancy only for specified reasons, such as violation of a state or local law relating to mobilehomes, or nonpayment of rent.  (§ 798.56, subd.  (e)(1).)   The MRL similarly limits the charges homeowners can be required to pay to maintain their tenancies.  Section 798.31 provides in part, "A homeowner shall not be charged a fee for other than rent, utilities, and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered."
                

We are aware of no decision considering whether the authorization of charges for "utilities" in section 798.31 applies to cable television charges. In the absence of controlling authority, we look to principles of statutory construction. Our primary task in construing a statute is to determine the Legislature's intent. (Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 816, 826, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 823 P.2d 1216.) In determining legislative intent, "[w]e must begin with the words of the statute." (Ibid.)

The MRL does not define "utilities" generally. Section 798.31, which was enacted in 1978, has not been amended to incorporate the list of "utilities" set forth in section 798.41, which was enacted 12 years later. In fact, section 798.31 and section 798.41 appear to address fundamentally different concerns; section 798.31 specifies permissible charges to homeowners, while section 798.41 specifies the method by which certain utility charges may be assessed, assuming they are permissible under section 798.31. Indeed, section 798.41 speaks of charges "assessed by the utility," implying that the decision to impose the charges is made by the supplying company, not the park owner. Thus, the Legislature's purpose in adding section 798.41 to the MRL in 1990 appears to have been to afford park owners subject to rent control a means of preserving their existing profit levels in the face of utility increases, by allowing them to pass the increases on to tenants without having to seek a rent increase. We therefore cannot assume that because the Legislature included cable television in the list of utilities set forth in section 798.41, it meant to afford park management a unilateral right to procure and charge for cable television as a "utility" when it enacted section 798.31 12 years earlier.

"Utilities," in fact, are most commonly thought of as charges for essential services provided by government regulated and sanctioned monopolies. As the Supreme Court has noted, the Public Utilities Commission "deals with services that are essential." (Wood v. Public Utilities Commission (1971) 4 Cal.3d 288, 295, 93 Cal.Rptr. 455, 481 P.2d 823.) Similarly, Welfare and Institutions Code section 11452 designates "[u]tilities" as one of the "[m]inimum basic standards of adequate care" for purposes of public assistance. In this sense, cable television cannot be considered a "utility." It is not included within the definition of "utility" in the Public Utilities Code (Pub.Util.Code, § 216; Sacramento Cable Television v. City of Sacramento (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 232, 241, 286 Cal.Rptr. 470), and it is not subject to regulation as a common carrier or utility. (47 U.S.C. § 541(c).) Nor can cable television reasonably be considered "essential" in the way that such services as water and electricity are.

We conclude it is at best uncertain from the language of section 798.31 whether the Legislature intended to include cable The requirement that services be "actually rendered" or "performed" implies a request for the services, or at least willing acceptance of them. " 'In this state it is an established principle that "Where one performs for another, with the other's knowledge, a useful service of a character usually charged for, and the latter expresses no dissent, or avails himself of the service, a promise to pay the reasonable value of the services is implied." ' " (Hartford Financial Corp. v. Burns (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 591, 603, 158 Cal.Rptr. 169, first italics added.) The history of section 798.31 therefore tends to support Homeowners' contention that the statute does not contemplate charges for services not requested or used, even...