Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 550 P.2d 1001 (1976)

Citation: Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 550 P.2d 1001 (1976)
Parent Document: Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 550 P.2d 1001 (1976)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1976-06-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1193965/birkenfeld-v-city-of-berkeley/ ↗

Full Text

930 chars

Thus we conclude that the present charter amendment’s requirement that landlords obtain certificates of eviction before seeking repossession of rent-controlled units cannot stand in the face of state statutes that fully occupy the field of landlord’s possessoiy remedies. Insofar as the charter amendment simply prohibits eviction of tenants who are in good standing except for the expiration of their tenancies, it is a reasonable means of assuring compliance with maximum rent limits and does not conflict with statutoiy repossession proceedings even though making available a substantive defense to eviction. However, we have concluded for reasons to be explained that the charter amendment’s provisions for fixing maximum rents are constitutionally defective. Hence the limitation on the grounds for eviction cannot stand as it has no legislative purpose in the absence of limits on rent. (See F. T. B. Realty Corp. v. Goodman

Other Sections in This Document (374)

Full Text