10
Plaintiff’s argument that the trial court’s interpretation of LAMC section 151.05(A) included
“past violations [and] would provide tenants with an ability to permanently occupy a rental property
due to a single violation of the[] municipal code” is not well taken. Again, it was not simply a past
demand for, or acceptance of, rent for a unit for which there was no valid registration statement that
was found to have violated this section; rather, it was the underlying oral agreement for possession of
the unit in exchange for the payment of rent to plaintiff that was problematic.
As explained post, HCIDLA advised plaintiff of the proper procedure to evict a tenant when the
occupied property must be repaired in order to comply with a government order. Plaintiff was not
permanently dispossessed of the property, and his position that the trial court’s ruling effectuated a
“permanent physical invasion of property” and a “compensable taking,” or that defendant has been
“unjustly enriched,” is without merit.
11
Rehearing was granted to allow the parties to brief this issue.