Hearing Examiner's Conclusion in Noonan Case

Following is the conclusion written by Rent Control Board Hearing Examiner Lynn Naliboff, who found that Carol Noonan's primary residence is her Santa Monica apartment and not a house in Pasadena which she co-owns with her boyfriend, as landlord Les Gibbs argues.

Ms. Noonan does not live a conventional life. She does not spend all her time in one household; she is neither married nor single; and she co-owns a house in which she does not spend all her time and to which she has never contributed financially. Ms. Noonan and Mr. Kobrick have been together as a couple for over 20 years; although they have discussed marriage off and on for all those years, they have never married. However, they do own a home together.

The main issue in this case is whether the Santa Monica or Pasadena residence is the usual residence of return for Ms. Noonan. Does she actually reside with Mr. Kobrick in the house they co-own in Pasadena, spending some recreational time with him in the Santa Monica unit, as the owner argues? Or does she actually live in Santa Monica, with secondary time spent in Pasadena with Mr. Kobrick, as Ms. Noonan argues?

According to Regulation 3304, "Occupancy as a tenant's residence does not require that the tenant be physically present in the unit at all times or continuously but that it is the tenant's usual residence of return."

Ms. Noonan's own testimony and evidence made it clear that she is not present in the unit at all times or continuously, but instead spends one to two nights a week at Mr. Kobrick's house and at least one night at her mother's home in San Diego County. In addition, Mr. Kobrick spends one to two nights a week with her in Santa Monica. Further, Ms. Noonan maintains an office in the Pasadena home, which is much closer to her place of work in Baldwin Park than is the Santa Monica unit.

An analysis of all the factors discussed above leads to the conclusion that the Santa Monica unit is Ms. Noonan's usual residence of return. The hearing officer finds that although Mr. Kobrick and Ms. Noonan are together several times a week, they maintain separate residences. The Pasadena home constitutes Ms. Noonan's secondary residence. As discussed above, almost all of Ms. Noonan's belongings are in Santa Monica, with the exception of her work materials and a small percentage of clothing and personal items found in Pasadena.

Although Ms. Noonan is nominally a co-owner of the Pasadena house in joint tenancy, her formal involvement with the house appears to be minimal. She did not contribute financially to the purchase and does not contribute to the payment of the mortgage, insurance, or property taxes. She pays only for the phone line that she uses for her work and an occasional utility bill. Despite her name on the deed, it seems to be, in every other way, Mr. Kobrick's house. (The hearings investigator) Mr. (Pete) Savino's observations about the differences in the decor and furnishings in the two homes, along with his photos, support the conclusion.

The hearing officer finds that the evidence pointed to by the owner, such as the bills and correspondence sent to Pasadena rather than Santa Monica, the phone listing for Ms. Noonan in Pasadena, the postmarked envelopes from the Pasadena area, and the fact that Ms. Noonan receives some mail, including mail from her employer, in Pasadena, are not significant in light of the totality of the circumstances.