KLARFELD v. BERG (1980)

Harriet Klarfeld, who instituted this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated (hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as Klarfeld), appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendants Everett E. Berg and Everett E. Berg dba Westwood Horizons (hereinafter together referred to as Westwood Horizons).

FACTS

Everett Berg and his immediate predecessor for over five years prior to this action operated a multi-storied building of over 300 residential units in the Westwood area of Los Angeles as a luxury retirement residence under the dba Westwood Horizons. On August 30, 1978, the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter referred to as the City) passed Ordinance No. 151,415 which had as its purpose the freezing of rents at their May 31, 1978, level. This ordinance, referred to herein as the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance, freezes rents in the City at that level for a period of six months from its enactment. When Westwood Horizons in August of 1978 informed Harriet Klarfeld and all other residents of the retirement building that their monthly payments would be increased as of October 1, 1978, she and several others refused to pay the rent increase. Thereafter on November 28, 1978, this class action was filed. Subsequently on or about December 14, 1978, Harriet Klarfeld vacated her room.

The complaint, in substance, alleges that Harriet Klarfeld is 86 years old and a resident of the senior citizen retirement home known as Westwood Horizons; that she brings the action herself and on behalf of the class of 270 senior citizens who reside at the facility; that on August 9, 1978, defendant Berg had Klarfeld served with a notice of rent increase; that she declined to pay the increase on the basis that it is barred by City Ordinance No. 151,415, a copy of which is attached to and incorporated in the complaint; that on November 15, 1978, defendant Berg served notice on Klarfeld stating that if she did not pay the increased rent the lock on her door would be changed on December 15, 1978, thereby locking her out of her home; that by reason of the unlawful demand for increased rent and threat to lock Klarfeld out of the residence, the residents will suffer great and irreparable harm; that there is no adequate remedy at law; that the attempt to increase rent and threat of a lockout for failure to pay the increase is a willful and malicious course of conduct by defendants; and that plaintiff and other members of the class are entitled to punitive damages. The prayer requests the court to enter an injunction, to determine that defendant is not entitled to a rent increase during the period of the freeze under Ordinance No. 151,415; that defendant be ordered to repay to plaintiffs all rent increases paid in violation of said ordinance; and that plaintiffs be awarded attorney's fees and costs and punitive damages.

The trial court overruled defendants' demurrer and denied defendants' motion to strike the complaint. Defendants answered and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment supported by the declaration of Frank H. Davis, Jr., general manager of Westwood Horizons. Defendants allege that on the basis of undisputed facts it clearly appears that the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance is not applicable to a retirement facility such as Westwood Horizons which, as part of its monthly charges, provides to its residents in addition to lodging three meals daily, transportation, recreational facilities and activities, maid service and other related services.

Defendants point out that the ordinance in section I declares its stated purpose to “ prohibit most rental increases on rental residential units within the City of Los Angeles”; that section II, subsection e, defines those “rental units” to which it applies as “All dwelling units in the City of Los Angeles designed for rental use ”; that by reference to the Los Angeles City Municipal Code section 12.03 a “dwelling unit” is defined as “A group of two or more rooms, one of which is a kitchen, designed for occupancy by one family for living and sleeping purposes”; and that none of the rooms at Westwood Horizons has a kitchen or cooking facilities and cooking in the rooms is prohibited. The general manager by declaration alleges that he is familiar with the facility which has 301 units with private and semi-private rooms, double rooms, and suites; that none of the rooms have kitchen or cooking facilities and cooking is prohibited; that all residents signed either a Westwood Horizons Rental Agreement or a Westwood Horizons Agreement, copies of which are attached to his declaration, which establish the regular services provided; that the facilities are available on a daily or weekly basis but that in any event the charge includes all services; that those services include three meals a day and snacks, daily maid service, full linen service, regular cleaning, bellman and room service, 24-hour front reception desk, internal 24-hour switchboard service, social services director, planned programs of recreational activity, all utilities except outside telephone, twice weekly bus service to medical appointments and social or recreational functions, activities director, and a beauty shop and coin operated laundry facility on the premises as well as an office of the Older Persons Information and Counseling Service. Mr. Davis further declares that Westwood Horizons employs 115 persons on a full-time basis; that this staff spends a substantial proportion of its time providing individualized services to the residents; that it is the announced policy of Westwood Horizons to review charges once a year and adjust them in relation to changes in the cost of living index; that Harriet Klarfeld was a resident at the facility for approximately one and a half years prior to December 14, 1978; that she received notice of an increase in monthly charges effective October 1, 1978; and that on that she voluntarily vacated her room on December 14, 1978.

The opposing points and authorities of plaintiffs supported by the declaration of Harriet Klarfeld argue that the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance was an interim measure intended to protect, inter alia, senior citizens and persons on fixed incomes; that the ordinance specifically excludes housing accommodations rented primarily to transient guests and accommodations in a non-profit home for the aged; that Westwood Horizons is neither transient nor non-profit; that to construe the ordinance as inapplicable to Westwood Horizons because the accommodations do not include kitchens is to subvert the purposes of the legislation; that the definition of dwelling unit in the Municipal Code is not controlling with respect to the rental accommodations to which the ordinance is intended to apply; that the ordinance controls increases in rental on all “dwelling units, efficiency dwelling units and suits”; that suite is defined by section 12.03 as “A group of habitable rooms designed as a unit, and occupied by only one family, but not including a kitchen or other facilities for the preparation of food, with entrances and exits which are common to all rooms comprising the suite”; and that the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance applies to suites offered for rent by Westwood Horizons.

Harriet Klarfeld by declaration alleges, inter alia, that on October 1, 1968, she was informed that her rent would be increased from $555 to $595; that by reason of the ordinance she refused to pay the increase; that on November 15, 1978, she received notice that in 30 days she would no longer be entitled to housekeeping services and she would be locked out of her apartment; that she lives on a fixed income; that Westwood Horizons does not hire rooms to transient guests; that each apartment has its own telephone not connected to the central switchboard; that the furniture in her apartment is her own property; and that she is looking for a new place to live but finds it difficult to relocate.

The trial court on April 23, 1979, granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment, observing that plaintiffs receive a substantial “bundle” of facilities in addition to use of their apartments in consideration of the monthly charge and that “Los Angeles Municipal Ordinance 151,415 neither was intended to, nor does, apply to establish a maximum charge for the furnishing of amenities and facilities of the scope furnished to plaintiff and her class here, even though one facility may be housing.” Plaintiffs appeal.

ISSUE

The sole issue on this appeal is whether a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance applies to the facilities offered by Westwood Horizons.

DISCUSSION

It is apparent from the record, including the pleadings, exhibits thereto, and supporting and opposing declarations that the relevant and material facts are undisputed. Plaintiff Klarfeld resided at Westwood Horizons at the time the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance was enacted; she received notice of a rent increase for her unit at Westwood Horizons and she refused on the basis of the ordinance to pay the increase; and she was asked to move and she relocated. Westwood Horizons is a retirement residence facility which provides to residents for a monthly fee rooms without kitchen or cooking facilities, and supportive services including meals, linens and maid service, receptionist and switchboard service, bellman services, social and recreational programs and activities, and transportation for medical and social purposes. To facilitate such services defendants had a staff of 115 full-time employees. Each resident signed a written agreement setting forth the nature of these services which are included without additional cost in the single monthly charge for rooms. Since all relevant and material facts were presented to the court, defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted. (Code Civ.Proc., s 437c.)

The sole question is one of law: did the trial court properly interpret the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance in holding that it had no application to Westwood Horizons? Both established principles of statutory construction and equitable principles support the determination of the trial court excluding from the application of the ordinance the monthly charges made by Westwood Horizons for a room and supportive services requiring that it maintain a significant number of full-time service personnel.

The ordinance purports to establish a moratorium period during which rents may not be increased on “rental units” in the City. In defining “rental unit” the ordinance refers to “all dwelling units” in the City designed for rental use. The ordinance does not further define “dwelling unit”. The ambiguity is clarified by reference to section 12.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, supra, which describes it as a group of rooms “one of which is a kitchen” designed for occupancy by one family. These ordinances passed by the City Council at different times but relating to the same subject matter should be construed together to be in harmony and tend to effectuate the object and purpose of the legislation. (People v. Amdur (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d Supp. 951, 961, 267 P.2d 445.) The principle applicable to statutes controls also in construing municipal ordinances. (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645, 335 P.2d 672.) It may be assumed that the City Council had in mind the definition of dwelling unit supplied by its own legislative enactments in the Municipal Code when it adopted the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance. (See, e. g., Bay Shore Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1918) 36 Cal.App. 547, 172 P. 1128.)

Subsequent to enactment of the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance the City Council on March 15, 1979, adopted Ordinance No. 152,120, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to implement measures to alleviate the City's housing crisis. That ordinance once more defines rental units as dwelling units but further specifically refers to section 12.03 of the Municipal Code for the definition of dwelling units. It is logical to construe together these directly related ordinances dealing with the same subject matter. (People v. Amdur, supra.)

Plaintiffs argue that the appropriate definition of the term “dwelling unit” is that set forth in Civil Code section 1940, subdivision (c), which relates to the hiring of real property. Dwelling unit is there described as “a structure or the part of a structure that is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household.” The statutes accompanying this one deal with the respective obligations of landlord and tenant and other incidents of leasehold interests in real property. The definition in section 1940, subdivision (c), does not appear to have in contemplation a residence facility which supplies and includes in its charges substantial supportive services for its residents, and it is clear that such residences, such as the retirement facility in the case at bench, constitute special situations.

In view of the fact that the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance was enacted for a special purpose, the differentiation in its application to various types of accommodations must be made on a logical and equitable basis to effectuate that purpose. It is logical, in the first instance, to assume that the City Council had in mind the terminology and definitions provided by the City's Municipal Code; this inference is supported by its explicit reference in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to that Code. Furthermore, the ordinance is intended to apply principally to rentals paid for the use of real property; there is not indication that it was the intent of the legislative body to freeze charges made for services.

The monthly charges paid by plaintiffs included, as the trial court observed, charges for a substantial “bundle” of services; there was no breakdown of charges distinguishing the price of room occupancy from charges for services. Accordingly, it would not be equitable to apply to charges for these services an ordinance designed to control rents. This view is supported by provisions of the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance which prohibits increases in rent for such things as parking, furnishings, and housing services. The latter refers to services connected with occupancy of the premises including such items as maintenance and repairs, laundry facilities, janitor services and refuse removal. The special services included in the monthly charges at Westwood Horizons substantially exceed elements of this kind and therefore do not constitute charges to which the Rent Roll-Back Ordinance applies.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

L. THAXTON HANSON, Associate Justice.

LILLIE, Acting P. J., and ROBERSON,* J., concur.