Appeal Hearing
2714 Webster St. #3 Q001-55A
(acpt. 6/4/96)
The landlord’s petition for a rent increase based on comparable
rents for the subject unit was denied because the hearing officer
found that the landlord failed to meet his burden of proof in
justifying the amount of increase requested. The landlord was
also found liable to the tenant in the amount of $14,500.00 due
to unlawful rent increases. On appeal, the landlord maintained
that: he was being penalized for an act of charity, in that the
tenant’s occupancy was supposed to have been temporary, while
the tenant was recovering from an illness, and the sums collected
represented expense reimbursement rather than rent; the decision
violated the Evidence Code in that the only evidence in the record
was the testimony of the landlord’s expert witness, which was
not countervailed by the tenant; and, by disallowing the establishment
of a near market rent for the unit, the decision denied the landlord
of a reasonable return on his investment and constituted an unlawful
taking of his property in violation of the United States and California
Constitutions. At their meeting on June 4, 1996, the Board voted
to remand the case for a new hearing on the issue of comparables
and to hold a Board hearing on the issue of the rent overpayments.
The Board hearing was stayed pending the issuance of a remand
decision on the comparables claim.
The Decision of Hearing Officer on Remand granted a rent increase
based on comparables from the corrected base rent amount of $400.00
to $976.24. The tenant appealed the remand decision, asserting
that the hearing officer erred in rejecting the tenant’s evidence
regarding comparable rents taken from the Tenants Union database
and census data, and in finding that the subject unit is not comparable
to other units in the building. The tenant also raised a claim
of financial hardship and requested a stay of the comparables
increase until the overpayment portion of the case was heard before
the Board. At the meeting on April 22, 1997, the tenant’s appeal
was denied and the Board hearing on the issue of the rent overpayments
was, accordingly, scheduled.
The appeal hearing commenced at 7:45 p.m. At that time, the
following motion was made:
MSC: To recuse Commissioner Moore from consideration of this
case. (Becker/Mosser: 5-0)
In attendance was the landlord, accompanied by his attorney,
and the tenant, representing himself. At the commencement of
the hearing, the parties stipulated as to the rent history and
the amounts that the tenant has been paying to the landlord.
Testimony focused on the unusual circumstances surrounding the
inception of this tenancy and the equities on both sides. After
offsetting amounts due to the landlord from the tenant for reimbursement
of the approved comparables rent increase from the overpayment
amount owing to the tenant, it appeared that the sum of $3,025.20
remained owing to the tenant from the landlord. After the conclusion
of the hearing at 9:00 p.m., the parties were given an opportunity
to settle this matter, but did not do so. After discussion, it
was the consensus of the Board that, due to laches and other equitable
considerations, there should be no exchange of funds between the
parties. Staff will draft a proposed decision for approval by
the Board at a future meeting.