- 1550 Bay St. S001-93R thru S003-53R
(cont. from 8/18/98)
The landlord’s petition for rent increases based on increased operating expenses was granted. One tenant appeals the decision on the grounds that, since his tenancy commenced after ownership of the property changed, he should not be subject to the rent increase pursuant to Rules Section 6.10(a). In addition, sixty tenants appeal the decision, asserting that the "anti-speculation clause" {Rules Section 6.10(f)} is applicable to the facts of this case. The landlord had purchased the "unit" or building in 1987, but did not acquire the land until December of 1994. The hearing officer therefore found that since the most recent purchase of the "unit" did not occur within two years of the date of purchase of the unit by the seller of the unit to the current landlord, Rules Section 6.10(f) is inapplicable. The tenants argue that since the definition of "rental unit" in Ordinance Section 37.2(p) specifically includes "the land and appurtenant buildings thereto", the sale and acquisition of the land cannot be ignored, even though the landlord owned the building prior to the acquisition of the land.
Since the tenants had submitted a relevant submission on the afternoon of the meeting, to which the landlord’s attorney had not had a chance to respond, at the meeting on August 18th, the Commissioners continued consideration of these appeals.
MSF: To accept the 60 tenant appeals filed by the Tenants’ Association and remand the case on the issue of whether the acquisition of the land constituted a transfer, or was merely a refinancing mechanism; and to determine whether a change in the amount of the property taxes would affect the amount of the operating and maintenance expense increase. (Marshall/Becker: 2-3; Lightner, Mosser, Wasserman dissenting)
MSC: To deny the 60 tenant appeals filed by the Tenants’ Association asserting the applicability of the "Anti-Spec Clause" (Rules and Regulations Section 6.10{f}) to the Debt Service category of the landlord’s petition based on increased operating expenses. (Lightner/Mosser: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
MSC: To deny the appeal filed by the tenants in unit D458 on the issue of when they moved into the building. (Lightner/Mosser: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
MSC: To deny the appeal filed by the tenant in unit 103 on the issue of ownership of the building. (Lightner/Mosser: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
- 150 Julian Ave. T001-01R
(cont. from 8/18/98)
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent from $540.00 to $807.30 was denied because the hearing officer found that the tenant had failed to meet her burden of proving that the amount was in excess of allowable annual and banked increases available to the landlord. On appeal, the tenant claims that the sellers could not have told the landlord that increases had not been imposed between 1982 and 1989, because they were not the owners of the property at that time; that the resident manager for the building at that time could confirm that increases had been imposed, but illness has prevented him from doing so; and that it is not possible to obtain copies of money orders from so long ago.
Since there was a question as to the calculation of allowable banking in the Decision of Hearing Officer, this case was continued in order to obtain clarification from staff.
MSC: To deny the appeal. (Lightner/Mosser: 3-2; Becker, Marshall dissenting)
- 3009 Mission #304 T001-07R
The tenants’ petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenants in the amount of $5,980.00 due to serious habitability problems in the subject unit. On appeal, the landlord states that her representative at the hearing did not have settlement authority nor supporting evidence to refute the tenants’ allegations; and that the bookkeeping office has moved, making it difficult to gather supporting records and receipts in support of the appeal.
MSC: To deny the appeal, except that a Technical Correction to the Decision shall be issued by staff. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
- 229 Corbett T001-10A
The tenant’s petition alleging an unlawful increase in rent was granted and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,331.68. The tenant and landlord had come to an agreement in which the tenant proposed a rent increase of 15% in return for which the landlord forgave rent arrearages owed by the tenant’s roommate. The hearing officer determined that the rent increase was not null and void, because it had not been imposed by the landlord, but, rather, the base rent was recalculated to reflect the correct percentage increase the landlord was entitled to at the time. On appeal, the landlord claims that: there was no rent increase from 1993 to 1994; the tenant owes $900.00 for a security deposit and $100.00 for a utility bill; and the forgiveness of unpaid rent amounts was conditioned on the increase in rent.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case to the hearing officer on the record in order for the parties to submit evidence regarding amounts that were owing to the landlord from the tenants, and to offset said amounts from the landlord’s rent overpayment liability; the landlord is advised that irrelevant information on checks may be redacted in order to protect any privacy concerns that he may have. A hearing will be held only if necessary. (Wasserman/Mosser: 5-0)
- 2360 Pacific Ave. T001-11A
The landlords’ petition for certification of capital improvement costs was dismissed due to their failure to appear for the properly noticed hearing. The landlords’ non-attorney representative had quit and left the country with most of the papers relevant to the petition after the first hearing but before the continued hearing date. The landlords had been out of the country, but returned approximately three weeks prior to the continued hearing date. On appeal, the landlords allege that they failed to receive notice of the hearing, and attach a Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.
MSC: To accept the appeal and remand the case for a new hearing; every effort will be made to accommodate the tenant in the re-scheduling of this case. (Becker/Lightner: 5-0)
The Commissioners wished the Minutes to reflect the fact that the landlords’ representative, Walt Nutters, appears to have acted in an unprofessional manner with regard to this case.
- 753 "C" Webster St. T001-12A
The tenant’s petition alleging substantial decreases in housing services was granted, in part, and the landlord was found liable to the tenant in the amount of $1,340.00. The landlord had failed to appear at the properly noticed hearing. On appeal, the landlord claims not to have received notice of the hearing, and attaches a Declaration of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing.