BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2272
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Norma Torres, Chair
AB 2272 (Wagner) - As Amended: April 19, 2012
SUBJECT : Mobilehomes: injunctions
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 :
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.
3)Includes a sunset date of January 1, 2016, for the above
provisions.
EXISTING LAW
1)Permits the 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:
AB 2272
Page 2
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; and
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:
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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 a
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
AB 2272
Page 3
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
more expensive and less convenient than a simple eviction filed
in the 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. The "amount in
controversy" 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 an unlawful detainer (UD). For example, a
survey by the Assembly Judiciary Committee found that in most
AB 2272
Page 4
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). 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 its
probable effect on management decisions, this bill raises
another issue. 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 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
AB 2272
Page 5
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.
Double referred : The bill passed on consent the Committee on
Judiciary on April 24, 2012, by a vote of 10 to 0.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Anya Lawler / H. & C.D. / (916)
319-2085