SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Adam B. Schiff, Chairman
1999-2000 Regular Session
Mobilehome Parks and Condominiums: Pets
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require that mobilehome parks and common interest developments allow owner to keep at least one pet, subject to reasonable rules and regulations. The requirements of the bill would go into effect for any new agreements entered, amended or otherwise modified after January 1, 2000.
BACKGROUND
Numerous studies have shown that senior citizens who have pets live longer, go to the doctor less often, recover more quickly from illnesses, and have a more positive outlook than those who do not. In 1994, the California Supreme Court upheld a restrictive covenant in a condominium community which banned all pets, save fish and domesticated birds. The Legislature responded by twice introducing legislation to allow pets, SB 2077 (O'Connell) and AB 2020 (Thomson). Then-Governor Wilson vetoed AB
2020, based upon his assertion that the bill would interfere with private contracts.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that:
Landlords must allow disabled persons to have guide dogs, service dogs, or signal dogs, and may not refuse to rent to a disabled person. Elderly persons in publicly funded housing are entitled to have up to two household pets. Existing law does not require that pets be allowed in either mobilehome parks or common interest developments.
This bill would:
Provide that no lease agreement in a mobilehome park, or governing document in a common interest community, shall prohibit an owner from keeping at least one pet, subject to reasonable rules and regulations.
If a rule or regulation limiting the number of pets is created following adoption of this measure, the limit would not apply to any pet that the owner currently keeps, so long as it otherwise conforms with the rules and regulations.
For the purposes of this bill, pet is defined as any domesticated bird, cat, dog, aquatic animal kept within an aquarium, or any other animal agreed to between the management or association and the homeowner.
The provisions would take effect for any agreement entered into, modified, or renewed on or after January 1, 2000.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for bill and support
According to the author, "The right of pet ownership is usually universally accepted. Unfortunately, much hardship and pain is caused by the arbitrary housing policies of some common interest developments and mobilehome parks that force pet owners to choose between their housing and their pet. It is a known fact that people benefit from pet ownership. Pets help create companionship, comfort, consolation, security, and a sense of well being. Numerous scientific studies show that pet owners live longer, go to the doctor less often, recover from illness more quickly, and have a more positive outlook than those who do not have a pet. Denying one the right to these tangible quality-of-life benefits should not be done indiscriminately." The author points out that the bill would allow the creation of reasonable rules and regulations which can be used to prevent any pet from becoming a nuisance or annoyance to the neighboring residents.
The Union of American Physicians and Dentists supports this bill, saying, "Many senior and retired people statewide reside in mobilehome parks and suffer from a number of medical problems directly related to the agin process. Data has indicated that pets can be very beneficial to this population who suffer from depression and loneliness due to isolation."
The American Homeowners Resource Center support for a different reason: freedom to control one's own private property. They point out that owners of condominiums and of mobilehomes have ownership rights and control over the interior of their dwellings. "We believe that the individual citizen should have the maximum amount of freedom consistent with life in an organized society? AB 860 sensibly provides for associations to set up reasonable rules and regulations, thereby accommodating citizens' desire for pets with the conditions of modern urban life."
The California Association of Realtors also support the bill saying, "The bill strikes a reasonable balance between homeowners wanting to keep a pet, such as a dog or cat, and a homeowner association desiring to establish and fully maintain rules concerning pets. The bill is not overreaching nor does it suggest that the Legislature is micromanaging homeowner association policy."
2. Opposition u}
The Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association (WMA) opposes the bill, based upon their concern that the only way to deal with an unruly pet is termination of tenancy. They believe that this remedy is too harsh, yet are unable to come up with an alternative. Under the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) mobilehome park management may establish rules and regulations to be followed by all mobilehome owners and other residents in the park. Residents who receive three written notices from management within a 12 month period of an alleged violation of the same park rule or regulation may have their tenancy in the park terminated, but only if the rule or regulation is "reasonable."
The California Association of Community Managers (CACM) also oppose. Their opposition is based upon their belief that, "CC&Rs are important because they define rules which help homeowners protect the value of their property and allow them to enjoy their property in peace and good health. CC&Rs may contain restrictions on the keeping of pets within a development to protect owners of separate interests who may be allergic to animals, to prevent animal-related damage to common areas, to keep noise at an acceptable level, or for many other reasons that are important to the majority of homeowners within the development."
Other opponents of this bill believe that AB 860 violates the basic foundations of the Davis-Stirling Act. They believe that the Davis-Stirling Act allows for home rule and that government should not try to "micro-manage" their lifestyles as long as they are not violating public policy. They argue that the standard of "reasonableness" will open the door to litigation over issues such as paint color, basketball hoops and items commonly addressed in these rules. They believe residents will be encouraged to test the "reasonableness" of other rules and severely restrict the ability of an association to enforce its own rules and regulations.
3. Background and case law: The Nahrstedt decision
Under the Davis-Stirling Act, builders may impose covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to regulate the use of the buildings and common areas in common interest developments (CIDs). The CC&Rs set forth how the community association should be governed, and gives the association the power to enforce promises the individuals make when they purchase a unit.
In Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association, Inc. (1994), the California Supreme Court upheld the authority of a community association to enforce a CC&R banning pets. The facts of the case are as follows: Ms. Nahrstedt purchased a condominium in the Lakeside Village Condominiums (a 530-unit condominium) in Los Angeles County, and moved in with her three indoor cats. Lakeside Village's CC&Rs prohibited all animals, except for domestic fish and birds. The Lakeside Village Board of Directors acted to enforce the no-pet restriction and requested Ms. Nahrstedt to remove her cats. After she refused to comply, the Board imposed a series of fines for the violations. Ms. Nahrstedt sued the Association, arguing that the project's declaration was "unreasonable" because she kept her three cats indoors and they are "noiseless" and "created no nuisance."
The Nahrstedt court was faced with a question of first impression, what does reasonable, within the context of Civil Code 1354, include? Section 1354 provides that "the covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes unless unreasonable?" The court presumed that properly adopted CC&Rs are reasonable, unless "wholly arbitrary, violate fundamental policy, or impose burdens on the use of affected land that far outweighs any benefit." The court noted that "there is no federal or state constitutional provision or any California statute that confers a general right to keep household pets in condominiums or other common
interest developments."
The Nahrstedt court's holding was not directed to pets per se, but rather to what factors a court will use to determine whether a restrictive covenant under Civil Code 1354 is reasonable. AB 860 would be consistent with the holding in this decision, as its passage would be a declaration of state policy to require pets be allowed in common interest developments and mobilehomes. As the holding of the decision was based upon an interpretation of legislative intent, and not on constitutional principle, AB 860 would not violate the Constitution, as some early opponents claimed.
4. Prior related legislation
AB 2020 (Thomson) 1997, would have provided that a common interest development's governing documents cannot prohibit a disabled individual or an individual where a licensed physician or psychologist prescribes a pet for companionship from keeping a pet within a common interest development. The association could impose reasonable rules and regulations that require the owner or occupant to remove the pet if: the pet constitutes a threat to the health and safety of other individuals, or keeping the pet would result in substantial and continuing physical
damage to the property of others, or if the owner or occupant pet owner doesn't comply with the reasonable rules or regulations and their lack of compliance constitutes a nuisance or unreasonably interferes with the use and quiet enjoyment of other homeowners or the common area. Then-Governor Wilson vetoed the bill, saying, "The Supreme Court has validated the concept that CC&Rs are private contracts between homeowners and their associations. While evidence suggests that pets enhance the quality of life for many seniors and disabled persons, the resolution of any conflict should come though the homeowner association board of directors and the homeowners rather than through a bill that interferes in those private contracts."
Senate Bill 2077 (O'Connell, 1996) would have allowed any elderly person (62 or older) to keep a pet or any disabled person to keep a pet for medical or psychological treatment. After passing the Senate, the bill died in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
Support:
American Homeowner's Resource Center
American Humane Association
Animal Protection Institute
Animal Rescue Foundation
California Association of Realtors
California Coalition for the Rural Housing
California Federation for Animal Legislation
California Psychiatric Association
Citizens Who Care
City of Antioch Police
Common Interest Consumer Project
Community Concern for Cats
Congress of California Seniors
Contra Costa County Animal Welfare Coalition
Contra Costa Humane Society
Doris Day Animal League
Feral Cat Foundation
Friends of Animal Services
Fund For Animals
Golden State Mobilehome Owners League (GSMOL)
Gray Panthers
Homeowner's Coalition of Tuolumne County
NationalSenior Citizen's Law Center
Ohlone Humane Society
Older Women's League of California
PAW-PAC
Placer County Mobilehome Residents Promoting EquitableTreatment
Santa Clara County Council on Aging
Sherwood Harbor Marina Recreational Vehicle Park
Source of Unconditional Love
Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles
The Animal Council
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
Numerous individuals
Opposition:
Western States Mobilehome Parkowners Association (WMA)
California Association of Community Managers (CACM)
Numerous individuals
HISTORY
Source: American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: AB 2020 (Thomson) 1996, vetoed;
SB 2077 (O'Connell) 1996, died in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee
Prior Vote: Assembly Housing and Community Development
Committee 6-3;
Assembly Floor 59-18
**************
|
