Ruling hikes longtime renter’s rate fourfold
OCEAN PARK — A residency dispute over a rent-controlled apartment unit ended unfavorably for a woman with cancer, causing her rent to double.
The Santa Monica Rent Control Board on Thursday heard from attorneys, representing landlord Sandra B. Petit and tenant Juin Desrosiers Barker, who argued whether Petit had a right to charge market rate for an apartment Barker has been using part-time since 2000.
The rent control board sided with Petit in the case, believing Barker was a “tenant not-in-occupancy.” Under Santa Monica’s Regulation No. 3304, a rent control law passed in 2003, landlords are able to increase rent when it’s been determined a unit is not the tenant’s primary residence. The law was designed to weed out renters who use their units as second homes, or for office or storage space, according to city records.
Barker faces a rental increase from $671 to $1,300 per month to retain the unit, after rent control board members decided her primary home is in Simi Valley.
According to a staff report, Barker began renting her one-bedroom apartment at 305 Strand St. in 1987, when she moved in with her now-deceased husband. The Barkers had a law practice based in Santa Monica.
The couple had a son, Samuel, in 1990, and the three family members resided together in the apartment.
Barker’s husband died a year later. Following his death, Barker’s residency and daily life gradually shifted away from her Santa Monica unit to Simi Valley, where she grew up, according to city records. Barker testified she moved there because of long-time contacts she had in the Simi Valley community which might further her business. Her parents also lived there, and it was believed they could help her raise Samuel.
Barker’s father fell ill and died in 1994. Following his death, Barker and her mother raised Samuel and enrolled him in school in Simi Valley. In the mid-1990s, Barker’s mother was diagnosed with emphysema. Barker became her primary caregiver, which further required her to live in Simi Valley, according to city records.
By 2000, Petit testified there was a pattern of occupancy in the apartment whereby Barker, her son and her mother would arrive on Friday night and leave Monday morning. The remainder of the week the unit was vacant, and it was presumed Barker lived in Simi Valley, Petit said.
In April 2004, Barker was diagnosed with cancer and has since had surgery, according to city records. She’s undergoing chemotherapy. Due to her illness, Barker has been unable to drive, and so she continued to mostly reside in Simi Valley, where she and her mother could assist each other.
In July 2004, Barker’s mother died. Barker, still recovering, continues to mostly reside in the five-bedroom Simi Valley home, which she testified has likely been entrusted to her and another family member.
Barker’s attorney, Andrew Karlin, indicated in the arguments he provided to the rent control board that between 1987 to early 2004, Barker and her son “regularly and consistently carried on basic living activities (at the apartment) for at least three days per week and, except for rare vacations, were never absent from it for more than a few days.”
Karlin said Regulation No. 3304 does-n’t prevent a tenant who regularly uses a rent-controlled unit as a residence from also using another unit as a residence. In addition, Karlin indicated that the reason Barker spent as much time as she did in Simi Valley was due to factors outside her control, like the fact she had a system of support available to her there following her husband’s death. Then, Barker was obligated to spend more time in Simi Valley due to her mother’s illness, and later, due to her own health.
Had circumstances been different, Barker would have spent more time in Santa Monica, Karlin said.
As a result, Karlin said Barker occupied the Santa Monica apartment half the time, and if it weren’t for factors outside her control, it would have been her primary residence.
“The point is, until she became ill, Ms. Barker occupied the unit 50 percent of the time,” Karlin said. “She would have spent more time there if she had the choice.”
Petit’s attorney, Cary Reisman, submitted to the rent control board a series of facts he believed indicated the opposite. He noted that Barker’s driver’s license, voter registration, and income tax returns are listed at the Simi Valley address, strong indicators it’s her “primary place of return,” city records show.
Also, Barker’s son, now a high school student, has always been enrolled in the Simi Valley school system, another indicator Simi Valley was in fact Barker’s permanent home.
“It’s a long case with a lot of facts, but when the dust settles, it’s not much of a dispute,” said Alan Toy, rent control board chair. “There is a preponderance of evidence which says she’s from Simi Valley.”
In July, City Hall won a legal battle against Robert Bisno, a millionaire with holdings throughout Los Angeles and California. The court ordered him to pay nearly quadruple rent for his beachside penthouse apartment after it ruled in favor of a rent control board decision which deemed his Neilson Way unit was not his primary residence, and therefore qualified for a rental increase. The 16th floor apartment rented for $900 in 1996 and now commands $4,045 a month.
Tracy Condon, rent-control spokeswoman, said Regulation No. 3304 took effect in March 2003. While the law has been active, 166 cases have been filed by landlords. Of those, 41 have been dismissed by a committee because there was not enough evidence to support a hearing; 26 were granted administratively because the tenant didn’t contest the rent increase; and 22 were withdrawn by the landlord.
So far, hearings have been held in 71 cases, 47 of which ultimately sided with the landlord and 24 sided with the tenant, Condon said.
Six cases are pending.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 3, 2005. Read the original PDF.