Tenant Wins First Hearing under New Regulation

By Oliver Lukacs
Staff Writer

July 29 -- Carol Noonan's rent-controlled apartment is her home, according to the first decision rendered under a new rent control regulation allowing landlords to hike the rent to market rates if they can prove the unit is not being used as a primary residence.

The 52-page decision by a rent control board hearing examiner -- which provides the first glimpse into a new corner of the tenant/landlord litigation arena -- is being appealed by the landlord, making it the first such case to go before the Rent Control Board.

Since the regulation took effect in March, 101 cases have been filed. Three cases have been withdrawn, 21 dismissed and 8 “administratively granted” to the landlord because the tenant essentially pleaded no contest.

In a decision that could sheds light on the kind of evidence needed to establish a case, Hearing Examiner Lynn Naliboff concluded that 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 charges.

“The preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that Ms. Noonan’s usual residence of return is Santa Monica,” Naliboff concluded. “Although she does maintain an office in Pasadena, and spends time with (her boyfriend) Mr. Kobrick there, as well as with her mother in Lake San Marcos, her home is the apartment which she has rented for almost 20 years.”

Noonan’s attorney, Andrew Zanger, said he did not bother to read the opinion to glean the case’s deciding factors.

“To be honest I didn’t read the whole thing," Zanger said. "These opinions are always very long. The real issue is the hearing officer concluded that she really lives there. It’s her home.”

The evidence stacked against the tenant included everything from a business card the landlord picked out of a trashcan listing Noonan’s home phone number in a Pasadena area code, Pasadena phonebooks listing Noonan as a resident and a copy of the deed to the Pasadena house showing Noonan as co-signatory.

In addition, the landlord's attorney, Rosario Perry, subpoenaed Noonan’s workplace records and phone and electricity bills to find out what address she was putting down as her residence.

It is this kind of probing -- along with inspectors analyzing the contents of a tenant’s refrigerator and bathroom for signs someone lives there -- that has tenant advocates concerned the regulation, which could apply to anywhere from 300 to 1,000 apartments citywide, could result in the invasion of a tenant’s privacy.

But landlords are willing to go through the lengthy process because the new regulation can prove to be an economic boon.

Rents at some of the city’s most desirable buildings can range from $640 for longtime tenants to more than $5,000 for tenants who moved in after January 1, 1999, when the state’s vacancy decontrol law kicked into full effect.

Noonan said she currently pays about $700 per month for her one-bedroom unit in the 12-unit apartment building at 2435 Third Street she has rented for 20 years. The landlord would not say what the market rate rent hike would be if he won the appeal.

Noonan’s case is complicated because a tenant can own a home and still be a resident in a rent-controlled apartment under a homeowner’s exemption in the regulation, according to Marcia Zimmer, a hearing department manager.

While happy with the decision, Zanger warned of reading too much into Noonan’s case as a victory for tenants.

“There is no model, every case is really different and unusual,” said Zanger. “I’ve done 14 hearings and the case for each one is really different, it had its own set of facts and circumstances… We’re just getting our feet wet.”