Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Citation: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Parent Document: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2006-08-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2255746/small-property-owners-v-city-co... ↗

Full Text

943 chars

It is undisputed that the Ordinance did not by its terms require landlords to invest the security deposits in the accounts that bore less than 5 percent interest for 16 months. Appellants argue that landlords were in reality forced to use those types of accounts, because only short-term, liquid investments permitted them to meet their statutory obligation to return security deposits within three weeks after the tenancy is terminated and the rental unit is vacated. (See Civ. Code, § 1950.5, subd. (g).) The trial court rejected this argument, stating: “Money is money. So long as the landlord has sufficient funds available to return the amount of the deposit, he or she can use the deposits as set forth above. There was no evidence that San Francisco landlords, or any meaningful portion of them, are so cash poor that they cannot return rental deposit amounts upon short notice without access to the precise funds originally deposited.”

Other Sections in This Document (187)

Full Text