Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate

• Decision Date: 13 June 2005
• Docket Number: No. S112386.,S112386.
• Citation: 112 P.3d 647,35 Cal.4th 1111,29 Cal.Rptr.3d 262
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: WASATCH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Syriah DEGRATE, Defendant and Appellant.

29 Cal.Rptr.3d 262

35 Cal.4th 1111

112 P.3d 647

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

No. S112386.

Supreme Court of California.

June 13, 2005.

As Modified July 27, 2005.

Legal Aid Society of San Diego and Bernadette E. Probus for Defendant and Appellant.

National Housing Law Project, Catherine Bishop, Oakland; Legal Services of Northern California, R. Mona Tawatao, Pacoima, Erin Farley; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, David Pallack, Pacoima; Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Susanne Browne, Long Beach; California Rural Legal Assistance and Ilene J. Jacobs, Marysville, for Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, California Coalition for Rural Housing, Housing Rights, Inc., Fair Housing Foundation, Coalition for Economic Survival, Greater Long Beach Interfaith Community Organization, Long Beach Community Action Network, Long Beach Area Coalition for the Homeless, City of West Hollywood, Santa Monica Recant Control Board and Annette Osborne as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Brian Kelly and Donald A. Tine, Berkeley, for City of Berkeley and City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kimball, Tirey & St. John, Patricia Helen Tirey and Gary Douglas Urie, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Heidi P. Poppe for California Apartment Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Houk & Hicks, Lloyd L. Hicks, Visalia; Thomas E. Campagne & Associates and Sarah A. Wolfe for Norcal Executive Directors Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Christensen Schwerdtfeger & Spath and Sean D. Schwerdtfeger for San Diego Housing Commission as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Peter Mezza for Housing Authority Executive Directors Association Southern California Chapter as Amicus Curiae.

MORENO, J.

The federal government, through the "Section 8" program, provides financial assistance to low-income tenants. (42 U.S.C. § 1437f.) We granted review to determine whether a landlord who terminates a tenancy agreement with a tenant receiving federal financial assistance through the Section 8 program (Section 8 tenant) is required by Civil Code section 1954.535 to give the tenant 90 days' notice if the property is not subject to a local rent control ordinance. We conclude that Civil Code section 1954.535 applies whether or not the property is subject to a local rent control ordinance, and that landlords must comply with the 90-day notice provision of section 1954.535 in order to terminate a tenancy agreement with a Section 8 tenant.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant Syriah Degrate, a Section 8 tenant, entered into a six-month tenancy agreement for an apartment in San Diego. The agreement began on May 1, 2000 and was to terminate on October 31, 2000, but would thereafter be renewed on a month-to-month basis. Degrate previously had entered into a one-year lease for this apartment.

On June 1, 2000, the owner of the apartment entered into a housing assistance payment contract (HAP contract) with the San Diego Housing Commission to receive funds provided to the local authority by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. (24 CFR §§ 982.451(a)(2), (b)(1) (1999).) The HAP contract provided that it "only appli[ed] to the household and unit" occupied by Degrate, and that the "contract terminates automatically if the lease is terminated by the owner or the tenant." An owner who receives such funds also enters into a rental agreement with the Section 8 tenant (tenancy agreement), under which the tenant agrees to pay the balance of the rent due. (24 CFR § 982.515 (2004).)

On January 31, 2001, plaintiff Wasatch Property Management served Degrate with a "Notice of Termination of Tenancy" that stated, in pertinent part, that "[t]he owner is electing not to renew your lease and you are being served with this NOTICE pursuant to Title 42 United States Code Section 1437f(d)(1)(B)ii." The notice directed Degrate to vacate the unit on March 2, 2001.

Degrate did not vacate the premises on March 2, 2001 as ordered by the notice of termination. On March 5, 2001, Wasatch filed an unlawful detainer complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. The superior court entered judgment in favor of Wasatch, and denied a motion by Degrate to vacate the judgment, holding that Civil Code section 1954.535¹ applies only in jurisdictions that have enacted rent control ordinances.²

The parties appealed the judgment to the appellate division of the superior court, which held that section 1954.535 applies only in rent-controlled jurisdictions, but reversed the trial court's judgment because Wasatch had not provided Degrate with notice of good cause to terminate the lease, as required by the lease and the HAP contract.

The appellate division of the superior court certified the case to the Court of Appeal, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 63. The Court of Appeal accepted certification and, in a published decision, held that: 1) the 90-day notice provision in section 1954.535 applies in all jurisdictions, including those without rent control ordinances; and 2) when a landlord terminates a tenancy agreement, thereby causing the termination of the HAP contract with the government agency, the 90-day notice provision of section 1954.535 applies. The Court of Appeal also held that the notice Degrate received was inadequate because the lessor failed to provide Degrate with notice of good cause to terminate her lease.

We granted review to clarify the proper interpretation of section 1954.535, and declined to review the Court of Appeal's alternate holding that the notice was inadequate for failure to show good cause to terminate the lease.

II. DISCUSSION

A tenant may defend against an unlawful detainer action by asserting that the lessor has not provided proper notice of termination, as required by statute. (Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 599-600, 181 Cal.Rptr. 795.) Generally, when a month-to-month tenancy is terminated without good cause, a lessor must provide the affected tenant with 30 days' notice. (§ 1946; see, e.g., People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Lucero (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 166, 173, 170 Cal.Rptr. 554.) However, in certain instances, section 1954.535 alters the notice requirement by requiring a lessor to provide 90 days' notice of a lease termination. Section 1954.535 requires that: "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."

A. Applicability of Section 1954.535 in Jurisdictions Without Rent Control Ordinances

Wasatch contends that it was required to give Degrate only 30 days' notice of the termination of her tenancy, as prescribed by section 1946, rather than the 90-day notice required by section 1954.535, because the latter statute applies only in jurisdictions in which a public entity has enacted a residential rent control ordinance. However, nothing in the language of section 1954.535 suggests that it applies only in jurisdictions that have enacted rent control ordinances.

In ascertaining the meaning of a statute, we look to the intent of the Legislature as expressed by the actual words of the statute. (People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1215, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 947 P.2d 808.) We examine the language first, as it is the language of the statute itself that has "successfully braved the legislative gauntlet." (Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1238, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298.) "It is that [statutory] language which has been lobbied for, lobbied against, studied, proposed, drafted, restudied, redrafted, voted on in committee, amended, reamended, analyzed, reanalyzed, voted on by two houses of the Legislature, sent to a conference committee, and, after perhaps more lobbying, debate and analysis, finally signed `into law' by the Governor. The same care and scrutiny does not befall the committee reports, caucus analyses, authors' statements, legislative counsel digests and other documents which make up a statute's `legislative history.'" (Ibid.)

Examining the language of section 1954.535, it is apparent that the statute does not apply only in jurisdictions with rent control ordinances, but rather applies anywhere in the state "[w]here an owner terminates or fails to renew a contract or recorded agreement with a governmental agency that provides" financial assistance, such as through the Section 8 program. (§ 1954.535.)

It appears that the Legislature deliberately decided not to limit the reach of section 1954.535 to rent-controlled jurisdictions. Not only is there no language within section 1954.535 that explicitly limits the reach of the statute to rent-controlled jurisdictions, but the same bill that added section 1954.535 to the Civil Code also amended section 1954.53 to include such an express restriction. Section 1954.53, subdivision (a)(1)(A), as amended, plainly limits its scope to a "jurisdiction that controls by ordinance or charter provision the rental rate for a dwelling or unit." Had the Legislature intended to also limit the scope of section 1954.535 in the same manner, it would have included similar language doing so. "`[W]hen the Legislature has carefully employed a term in one place and has excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded.'" (Brown v. Kelly...