BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2272
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2272 (Wagner) - As Amended: April 19, 2012
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : Mobilehomes: Injunctions
KEY ISSUE : Should the management of a mobilehome park be
permitted to enjoin a violation of park rules or regulations by
seeking an injunction as a "limited" civil case?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
Existing law permits the management of a mobilehome park to seek
a court order to enjoin a resident's continuing and recurring
violation of a park rule or regulation. However, existing law
requires that injunctive relief be sought as an "unlimited"
civil case, which has higher filing fees and is generally seen
as less convenient than filing a "limited" civil case. Existing
law also permits management to terminate the tenancy of a
resident who violates a rule or regulation that is part of the
rental agreement. This bill, by permitting management to bring
an injunction as a limited civil case, seeks to encourage
managers to seek injunctions instead of seeking the more severe
remedy of eviction. It will also, of course, save managers
filing costs when they opt for an injunction over eviction.
Because this bill seeks an exemption to a general Legislative
determination disfavoring injunctive relief as a remedy in
limited civil actions, the author recently amended the bill to
impose a three-year sunset provision so as to evaluate the
effect of this exemption to a general rule. The bill is
sponsored by the Western Manufactured Housing Communities
Association. There is no registered opposition to the bill.
SUMMARY : Provides that, until January 1, 2016, the management
of a mobilehome park may seek an order enjoining a violation of
a park rule or regulation as a limited civil case.
Specifically, this bill :
AB 2272
Page 2
1)Allows management to seek a petition for an order enjoining a
continuing or recurring violation of any reasonable rule or
regulation of a mobilehome park within the limited
jurisdiction of the superior court of the county in which the
mobilehome park is located.
2)Specifies that an injunction sought pursuant to the above
provision shall be considered a limited civil case.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Permits management of a mobilehome park to petition the court
for an order enjoining a continuing or recurring violation of
any reasonable rule or regulation of a mobilehome park.
(Civil Code Section 798.88.)
2)Permits management to terminate the tenancy if a resident
fails to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the
park that is part of the rental agreement or any amendment
thereof. However, no act or omission of the resident shall
constitute a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or
regulation unless management has given the resident written
notice of the alleged rule or regulation violation and the
resident has failed to respond, as specified. (Civil Code
Section 798.56 (d).)
3)Provides that an action or special proceeding shall be treated
as a limited civil case if the following conditions are
satisfied:
a) The amount in controversy, as defined, does not exceed
$25,000.
b) The relief sought is a type that may be granted in a
limited civil case.
c) The relief sought, whether in the complaint, a
cross-complaint, or otherwise, is exclusively of the type
described in one or more statutes that classify an action
or special proceeding as a limited civil case or that
provides that an action or special proceeding is within the
original jurisdiction of the municipal court. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 85.)
4)Provides that the following types of relief may not be granted
in a limited civil case:
AB 2272
Page 3
a) Relief exceeding the maximum amount in controversy for a
limited civil case.
b) A permanent injunction, except as otherwise authorized
by statute.
c) A determination of title to real property.
d) Declaratory relief, except specified.
COMMENTS : Under existing law, when a resident of a mobilehome
park violates one of the rules or regulations of the park,
management can either terminate the tenancy after giving the
resident 30-day notice to correct the violation, or, if the
violation is continuing or recurring, management may seek an
injunction ordering the resident to cease or otherwise correct
the violation. According to the author, this bill would
encourage the owner or management to seek the "lesser remedy" of
an injunction instead of the relatively more severe remedy of
eviction. While existing law already permits management to seek
injunctive relief instead of an eviction when there is a
violation, the author and sponsor believe that managers would be
more likely to do so (and avoid an eviction) if the injunction
could be sought as a "limited" as opposed to an "unlimited"
action in the superior court. According to the author and
sponsor, the "unlimited" jurisdiction of the superior court is a
more expensive and less convenient than a simple eviction filed
in limited jurisdiction of the superior court. In short,
because an injunction is currently more expensive than pursuing
an unlawful detainer, park management often opts for eviction
even though an injunction would be less disruptive for all
concerned.
"Limited" vs. "Unlimited" Civil Actions : Prior to their
unification in 1998, California had both county superior courts
and municipal courts. Among other distinctions, the municipal
court had jurisdiction over cases where the amount in
controversy was $25,000 or less and the superior court had
jurisdiction over cases above $25,000. In 1998 the California
Constitution was amended to permit unification of the municipal
and superior courts into a single superior court system.
(California Constitution, Article VI, Section 5.) Although the
municipal courts ceased to exist, civil cases that would have
formerly been within the jurisdiction of the municipal courts
are now classified as "limited" civil cases, while matters
formerly within the jurisdiction of the superior courts are
classified as "unlimited" civil actions. (See Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 85 and 88.) The "amount in controversy"
AB 2272
Page 4
distinction, however, remains the same: where the amount in
controversy is $25,000 or less, the action is classified as a
"limited" civil case; where the amount is more than $25,000, it
is classified as an "unlimited" civil case.
The classification of a case as either a limited or unlimited
action has implications that go beyond the amount of money that
the court may award. Most importantly for purposes of this
bill, a plaintiff in a limited civil action may not obtain a
permanent injunction and both parties have more limited
discovery than litigants in an unlimited case. According to the
author and sponsor, this means that it is sometimes cheaper and
easier for management to evict a resident who refuses to comply
with park rules and regulations than it is seek an injunction
ordering the resident to cease the violation. If, however,
management could file an injunction as a limited civil case, the
author contends, it would be cheaper to file for an injunction
than to file for a UD. For example, a survey by the Committee
found that in most superior courts the fee for filing a limited
civil case is $225 while the fee for filing an unlimited case is
$395. The fee for filing a UD action is typically $240.
Existing law creates a financial incentive to evict rather than
enjoin ($240 vs. $395), while this bill would create a slight
financial incentive to enjoin rather than evict ($225 vs.
$240). No doubt many other factors influence management's
decision to choose between enjoining and evicting, including the
nature of the violation. For example, a violation can only be
enjoined if it is continuing or recurring, whereas in order to
evict the violation must be a violation of the rental agreement
and the resident must have failed to respond when given a 30-day
notice to correct the violation. All other things being equal,
however, this bill would tilt the balances in favor of
enjoining, and this would presumably be best for both management
and the resident. One likely effect of the bill, however, will
be to save management $170 if and when they make the decision to
enjoin, even though the decision to enjoin instead of evict
might be based on other factors than filing costs.
Sunset Provision : Whatever the economic calculations and it's
probable effect on management choices, this bill raises another
issue of concern to the Judiciary Committee. As noted above,
existing law prohibits the granting of injunctive relief in a
limited civil case except as otherwise authorized by statute.
While existing law permits and anticipates bills of this sort -
this bill is providing that authorizing statute - existing law
AB 2272
Page 5
also suggests that at one time the Legislature made a conscious
determination that injunctive relief was not generally
appropriate in limited civil cases. Why this is so is not
entirely clear; it may simply be a byproduct of the fact that
limited civil cases inherited the jurisdiction of the old
municipal courts and those courts did not provide equitable
relief. If that is so, then it may be time to reconsider the
rationale for the general prohibition entirely rather than carve
out another exception. However, because this bill does carve
out an exception to the general rule, the author has decided to
include a sunset provision that will permit the Legislature to
revisit the issue and ensure that asking judges in limited civil
cases to issue injunctive relief does not create unanticipated
problems.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
As a matter of public policy, the availability of
injunctive relief promotes quiet enjoyment and reduces
disruption in housing. An injunction against a tenant
nuisance is a far less drastic remedy than the summary
displacement of an eviction. The less intrusive remedy of
injunctive relief against violation of mobilehome park
rule under Civil Code Section 798.88 is recognition of
this policy. Yet, owners are dissuaded because injunctions
are filed in the unlimited jurisdiction of the Superior
Court, which is a more expensive and less convenient forum
for both sides than a simple eviction filed in limited
jurisdiction in the judicial district. Parkowners are
discouraged from considering a less intrusive remedy. In
other words, the injunction is more expensive than
pursuing an unlawful detainer, so mobilehome parkowners
are more inclined to pursue an unlawful detainer instead.
This proposal would make the process to pursue injunctive
relief against a mobilehome park rule under Civil Code
Section 798.88, no less burdensome and costly than a
comparative and more intrusive remedy of eviction.
Simply, the legislation would provide that injunctions for
violations of rules and regulations be filed in limited
jurisdiction courts.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 2272
Page 6
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334