11
Applying the presumption that the City’s legislative enactments must be upheld, plaintiff fails
to overcome its burden to establish that the SMRCCA is inimical to section 1954.53. (See
Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th
at p. 752.)
Plaintiff’s remaining argument is that even if not preempted, section 1806, subdivision
(c) of the SMRCC—prohibiting a lessor from taking any action to obtain possession of a unit
from a tenant’s spouse on the ground that the spouse is not authorized to occupy the unit—
“imposes no limitations on increases in rent for a surviving spouse after the death of their tenant
spouse, but merely prohibits terminating the tenancy based on unauthorized occupancy.” This
argument ignores other applicable provisions of the SMRCCA and that plaintiff considered
defendant to be a tenant in her own right.12 The SMRCCA prohibited plaintiff from serving
any notice to quit or bringing an action to recover possession of the unit unless defendant failed
to pay the rent to which plaintiff was entitled. (SMRCCA, art. XVIII, § 1806, subd. (a)(1).)
The 425% rent increase imposed by plaintiff exceeded the rent ceiling (SMRCCA, art. XVIII, §
1805, subd. (a)(3)), resulting in an overstatement of rent. A notice that overstates the rent due
is “fatally defective” (Heffesse v. Guevara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 74, 83; accord,
Jayasinghe v. Lee (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th Supp. 33, 37), and plaintiff’s failure to comply with
the SMRCCA served as a complete affirmative defense to the action (SMRCCA, art. XVIII, §§
1805, subd. (h)(2), 1806, subd. (f)).
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Defendant is entitled to recover her costs on appeal.