Legal Fund

CAA and the Legal Fund are currently participating in the following Court Cases

Mortimer Howard Trust vs. Park Village Apartments Tenants Association

Issue: Does a group of low-income tenants of a former project-based federally subsidized Section 8 housing complex have the right to remain in the complex and to pay a portion of their rent by using federally funded “enhanced vouchers?”

Status: Ongoing. On August 8, 2011, the California Apartment Association filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of Mortimer Howard Trust. This case involves a group of low-income tenants of a former project-based federally subsidized Section 8 housing complex. The tenants argue that federal law gives them a right to remain in the complex and to pay a portion of their rent by using federally funded “enhanced vouchers.” Defendant, Mortimer Howard Trust, who owns the housing complex, argues that the tenants have no right to remain in the complex or to use the vouchers to pay their rent. Defendants further contend that even if the tenants have the right to remain in the complex and to pay a portion of their rent relying on the vouchers, a court cannot compel them to enter into a contract with the local housing authority that would require them to provide a certain level of service to tenants of the complex. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with the tenants – giving the tenants the right to remain in their previously subsidized Section 8 rental units in the absence of just cause for eviction. If the Appellate Court’s decision is allowed to stand, it prohibits property owners from ever exiting the Section 8 program entirely because they will never be able to terminate the existing tenancies absent a substantial breach of the agreement on the tenants’ part. Read CAA’s amicus brief.

Rental Housing Owners Association of Southern Alameda County v. City of Hayward

Issue: Can a City enforce an inspection ordinance that mandates that an owner “shall” allow entry into the unit, in contradiction to state law (which strictly limits the right of entry into an occupied unit)?

Status: Ongoing.  In July 2009, the Alameda Superior Court issued a judgment in Rental Housing Owners Association of Southern Alameda County (RHOA) v. City of Hayward. This case is a challenge to Hayward’s inspection ordinance, which required the property owner to allow code enforcement officials into all tenants’ units. CAA is helping to fund RHOA’s lawsuit. The Superior Court concluded that, (1) owners do not have the authority to allow code enforcers to enter units due to state law’s limitations on the right of entry, and (2) that the inspection does not constitute a “necessary service” for which entry is allowed. The court concluded that consent to enter can only be obtained from the tenant. The court also found that penalizing the owner for failing to allow entry would violate the owner’s constitutional due process rights.  In January 2010, the City sent out notices to property owners to collect the fees that support the program.   At a hearing in February, RHOA successfully challenged the City’s revised ordinance, arguing that it was not in compliance with the July ruling.  The City has appealed the ruling to the Appellate Court.  At issue is whether the City can require owners to gain the tenants’ consent to the inspection and whether the owner can be penalized for a tenant’s failure to comply with the inspection program.  Read CAA's Amicus Brief.

For a list of recently settled cases that CAA's Legal Fund participated in, click here.