Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)

Citation
People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
Parent Document
People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1988-02-17

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text

602 chars
Since neither the $65 new tenant fee nor the $50 transfer fee were applied to any of the purposes permitted by subdivision (b) of section 1950.5, they were required to be refunded. Appellant contends section 1950.5 is unconstitutionally vague because the definition of “security” is so broad it encompasses every payment a tenant makes. “ ‘[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.’ ” (People v. Barksdale