Opinion ID: 2518473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability to Owner Termination of Tenancy Agreement

Text: Having concluded that section 1954.535 applies within jurisdictions that have not enacted rent control ordinances, we now turn to the question whether terminating a Section 8 tenancy agreement triggers the 90-day notice requirement of section 1954.535 when the terminated tenancy agreement is the subject of a related Section 8 HAP contract. Section 1954.535 states that the 90-day notice provision is applicable [w]here an owner terminates or fails to renew a contract or recorded agreement with a governmental agency.... The statute clearly applies if the owner directly terminates the HAP contract with the government. However, the statute also applies where the owner knowingly causes the termination of the agreement with a government agency, here the HAP contract. Federal regulations provide that the HAP contract terminates if the lease is terminated by the owner or the tenant. (24 C.F.R. § 982.309(b)(2)(i) (2004).) The terms of the HAP contract here reflect this: [t]he HAP contract terminates automatically if the lease is terminated by the owner or the tenant. The converse is also true; [i]f the HAP contract terminates for any reason, the lease terminates automatically. Ultimately, under both federal regulation and the language of the specific HAP contract at issue, terminating one contract necessarily terminates the other. The principal question, then, is whether the word terminate, as used in section 1954.535, encompasses situations in which the owner indirectly terminates the HAP contract by terminating the tenancy agreement. When attempting to ascertain the ordinary, usual meaning of a word, courts appropriately refer to the dictionary definition of that word. ( People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999, 1009, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 869, 94 P.3d 1071; see, e.g., Hammond v. Agran (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 876; Scott v. Continental Ins. Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 24, 28-30, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 566.) The Oxford English Dictionary defines terminate as meaning, among other things, [t]o bring to an end, put an end to, cause to cease; to end. (17 Oxford English Dict. (2d ed.1989) p. 804.) This definition encompasses both directly ending something and indirectly causing it to end. Nothing in the legislative history suggests an intent to limit the application of section 1954.535 to situations in which the owner directly terminates a HAP contract. The Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis repeatedly refers to the owner's termination or nonrenewal of a `Section 8' housing agreement. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 7, 1999, p. 3.) This language does not specify whether indirect termination of the housing agreement triggers the 90-day notice requirement, or whether only direct termination is within the scope of section 1954.535. Similarly, the Legislative Counsel's Digest, which refers to termination of a specified rent limitation contract with a governmental agency, does not specify whether indirect, or only direct, termination of a single HAP contract would trigger the 90-day notice provision. (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Sen. Bill No. 1098 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.).) The court will apply common sense to the language at hand and interpret the statute to make it workable and reasonable. (See, e.g., Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 529, 536-537, 91 Cal.Rptr. 57, 476 P.2d 457.) Accordingly, the statute should be interpreted to avoid an absurd result. ( In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 537, 159 Cal.Rptr. 317, 601 P.2d 549; Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1238, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 298.) Under Wasatch's proposed application of the statute, the owner of a Section 8 housing unit would be allowed, in effect, to choose between giving a 90-day or 30-day notice to a Section 8 tenant whose tenancy agreement was being terminated without cause, [4] merely based upon which contract was terminated first. As noted earlier, when an owner terminates a tenancy agreement, the HAP contract is terminated as effectively as if the owner had directly terminated it. Not only is this true under the terms of the HAP contract at issue in this case, it also is clearly required by the federal regulations governing Section 8 housing, under which the termination of the tenancy agreement automatically terminates the HAP contract. (24 C.F.R. § 982.309(b)(2)(i) (2004); see also Friedman, et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2004) ¶ 12:50, p. 12-11 [The HAP contract term is the same as the lease term. Both the HAP contract and housing assistance payments terminate when ... the lease is terminated by the landlord or tenant....].) Federal regulations create further interrelation and entanglement between the HAP contract and the tenancy agreement by dictating that many of the crucial terms of the tenancy agreement be included verbatim in the HAP contract. For example, federal regulations require that the HAP contract include a tenancy addendum containing certain lease provisions, including provisions that address such important topics as the minimum initial lease term. (24 C.F.R. §§ 982.308(f), 982.309(a) (2004).) Moreover, the addendum must then be added word-for-word to the tenancy agreement signed by the Section 8 tenant. (24 C.F.R. § 982.308(f)(2) (2004) [All provisions in the HUD-required tenancy addendum must be added word-for-word to the owner's standard form lease that is used by the owner for unassisted tenants.].) Federal regulations also provide that the tenant shall have the right to enforce the tenancy addendum against the owner, and the terms of the tenancy addendum shall prevail over any other provisions of the lease. ( Ibid. ) Given the extensive interrelation of the two contracts, it would make little sense to allow the owner of a Section 8 unit to attach a different notice requirement to the termination of each contract, and thereby choose which notice period applies. Nor would it be reasonable for two different notice periods to apply depending upon whether an owner happened to deliver the tenancy termination notice or the HAP termination notice first. In sum, common sense weighs against interpreting section 1954.535 to distinguish between terminating the HAP contract and terminating the tenancy agreement. It would be absurd to apply differing notice requirements depending upon which of these two inextricably intertwined contracts the owner chose to terminate first.