Below is the text and a photograph of the unsigned and undated letter from Barron Ranches Inc and an analysis by Chat GPT of that legally unsound letter. Posted by the ST George Tenants Association - a legal activity.

〰️

Below is the text and a photograph of the unsigned and undated letter from Barron Ranches Inc and an analysis by Chat GPT of that legally unsound letter. Posted by the ST George Tenants Association - a legal activity. 〰️

December 18th, 2024

A Letter to:

Patrick Prindle
Vice President
Barron Ranches Inc.
740 Front Street, #210
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Mr. Prindle,

We, the undersigned residents of St. George Apartments, request that Barron Ranches Inc. rescind the undated and unsigned letter recently distributed to residents regarding retroactive rent increases. We do not agree with the assertions made in the letter and believe it fails to meet the standards of proper legal notice. Additionally, retroactive rent increases are historically illegal under California landlord-tenant law, and the letter infringes on our rights as tenants.

Key Concerns:

Improper Notice: The claim that proper legal notice was served under California Government Code Section 65863.10 and Civil Code Section 827 is contested. Our records and observations do not align with the timeline or methods of notification described.
Lack of Legitimacy: An unsigned and undated letter does not constitute proper or legally enforceable notice.
Tenant Protections: Retroactive rent increases are not permissible under California law, as affirmed in Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16 Cal.4th 761. Furthermore, the letter’s demands and implications undermine our rights to quiet enjoyment of our homes, which is protected under California Civil Code Section 1927.
Challenging the Ordinance: While we acknowledge Barron Ranches Inc.’s right to challenge Ordinance 2024-16 through the courts, such challenges must not impose undue pressure or create uncertainty for tenants. As residents, we are entitled to stability and protection under the law.

We urge Barron Ranches Inc. to substitute any future correspondence with one that adheres to proper legal standards and refrains from implying retroactive financial obligations that have no legal basis. Any further communications should be clear, dated, signed, and in compliance with applicable laws and tenant protections.

We look forward to your prompt acknowledgment of this request and a retraction of the letter in question.

Sincerely,

15 Signatures of St George Residents

c.c.

Tony Condotti - City Attorney, City of Santa Cruz

Jenny Panetta - Housing Authority County of Santa Cruz

Gustavo Valasquez - Housing and Community Development - Sacramento Office

St. George Tenants Association
November 5th, 2024

Martin C. Menne
Barron Ranches Inc.
777 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112

Dear Mr. Menne:

We recently received your unsigned and undated letter on or about October 31, 2024, regarding a constitutional challenge to the City of Santa Cruz’s ordinance, which caps rent increases at 10% for St George Apartments effective October 24th, 2024. Your letter suggests that should this challenge succeed, tenants would face a retroactive increase – in individual cases that is up to a 255% monthly increase - a suggestion as legally dubious as it is astonishing. This response serves as a firm reminder of the binding commitments in place under AB 1482, SB 567, the city ordinance, and your own applicable settlement agreement with the California Department of Justice, which does not expire until June of 2028.

Legal Framework and GVC’s Settlement Obligations

Settlement Agreement of June 14, 2023: As stipulated in the binding settlement with the California Department of Justice, Green Valley Corporation (GVC) and its subsidiaries, including Barron Ranches Inc., agreed to abide by California’s rent control laws, specifically Civil Code Section 1947.12 under AB 1482. This agreement binds GVC and its affiliates—indeed, including all legal heirs—to uphold protections against excessive rent increases. Barron Ranches, Inc., as the sole member of GVC St. George LLC, an affiliate of GVC, qualifies under this binding settlement. Any attempt to undermine these protections, whether through intimidation or retroactive demands, would be a breach of the settlement’s core terms and an act of bad faith.
California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482): Civil Code Section 1947.12 under AB 1482 caps annual rent increases at 10% or 5% plus the local rate of inflation, whichever is lower. This is reinforced by the recent ruling of the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County, which declared previous 180 day notice and 90 day notice rent increases for St. George tenants by GVC St George to be null and void and invited you to resubmit a legal increase, which has not been done to date. The Housing Authority, as you should know, holds legal authority over housing matters in this county, and its ruling removes any probability—or even legal possibility—of retroactive rent demands. Thus, tenants are entitled to rely on these statutory protections without fear of retroactive penalties, and this attempt to invalidate the ordinance does not, under the terms of your settlement, absolve you of compliance obligations. There are many legal cases on this point, which we will omit for now.
SB 567 – Coercion and Treble Damages: SB 567 explicitly addresses coercive rent practices. The insinuation that tenants may face exorbitant back charges if your challenge succeeds isn’t just legally unsound; it borders on intimidation. Furthermore, California now grants these protections even stronger recourse—treble damages are available for coercive practices, as the law now has “teeth”, which it didn’t have previous to its passage. Any retroactive demand for rent would subject Barron Ranches to three times that amount as damages. Should you proceed, the tenants have the legal option to file a “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement” in Santa Clara County, also seeking treble damages.

An Attempt to Evict by Stealth

Your unsigned and undated notice seems intended to pressure tenants into leaving their homes - as vacant apartments are not subject to any legal rent increase limits, as your rent increases of $1,595 per month to $1,895 per month to the current rent charged for a 231 square foot SRO of $2,200 just in the past 90 days demonstrate. For the record, we have no legal objections to these legal increases. However, as clearly stated in the settlement agreement and city ordinance long-term tenants of St George Apartments are protected from excessive rent increases. As Shakespeare cautioned, we should not treat the law as an empty symbol, there only to be ignored or manipulated. The law is a powerful force, not a decoration, and it brings real consequences for those who try to defy it. Any attempts to sidestep these protections—especially through retroactive demands—are in direct violation of the law and the binding settlement agreement.

In closing, we hope that Barron Ranches Inc. will reconsider this approach in light of these binding agreements. True valor lies in respecting the law and the orderly path it provides. We hope this letter clarifies our position regarding Barron Ranches Inc.’s obligations as a legal affiliate of GVC and a party bound to an agreed settlement and a recent city ordinance. Should you have any questions, however, feel free to contact us via our website at www.fight4stgeorgesantacruz.com, where your notice and this reply will be posted.

With confidence in our legal standing,

St. George Tenants Association

Cc’s

Tony Condotti - City Attorney for the City of Santa Cruz

Seth McGibben - Directing Attorney, California Rural Legal Assistance

Jenny Panetta - Executive Director for Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County

Rob Bonta - Attorney General for the State of California

Martin C. Menne

Barron Ranches Inc./MCM Diversified Inc.

777 North First STreet #600

San Jose, CA 95112

Dear Mr. Menne:

Re: Request for Ownership and Management Information for St George Apartments, 833 Front Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060

I am writing as a resident of St George Apartments, 833 Front Street, Apt 201, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 , a property owned or managed by Barron Ranches and/or MCM Diversified. Under California law (Civil Code § 1962), tenants are entitled to specific information regarding the ownership and management of their rental property, including the name and address of the property owner and the person authorized to manage the property and receive legal notices.

To date, I have not received clear and complete information regarding the ownership and management structure of the property. It has come to my attention that GVC St. George LLC, formed by Green Valley Corporation, is involved in the property's ownership and management. Additionally, Barron Ranches Inc. is reported to be the sole member of GVC St. George LLC. Moreover, a recent letter using the letterhead of Barron Ranches Inc., regarding potential unlawful detainer notices and threats of retroactive rents references “the owner” in paragraphs four and seven without identifying who that owner is, adding to an already confusing and murky situation. As residents of the property we are legally entitled to that information.

To clarify these relationships and ensure compliance with California law, I respectfully request the following:

The full legal name and contact information (address, phone number, and email) of the owner(s) of the property, including any corporate entities, individuals, or other parties involved.
The name, address, and telephone number of any agent or person authorized to manage the property and receive legal notices.
Confirmation of whether Green Valley Corporation retains any ownership, management, or decision-making authority regarding the property.

Please provide this information in writing within ten (10) business days of receiving this letter.

This request is made in good faith to ensure compliance with California law and to foster transparency regarding the management and ownership of my home.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Xxxx X. Xxxxxxxx

833 Front Street, Apt 201

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Sent Via Email on November 23rd and by USPS or FedEx on November 25th

Barron Ranches Inc. (AKA GVC St George)

Dear Residents,

On July 30, 2024, after sending all notices required by California Government Code Section 65863.10, you were lawfully served a Ninety Day Notice of Change of Monthly Rent in accordance with California Civil Code Section 827, increasing your rent 90 days after service upon you of the notice, or November 1, 2024, whichever is later.

Subsequently, on September 24, 2024, the City of Santa Cruz adopted Ordinance 2024-16, which limits rent increases only for residents of assisted housing developments as defined by Government Code Section 65863.10(a)(3), who were in possession of their units prior to service of the one-year notice of expiration of rental restrictions issued pursuant to that statute.

Our records show that you were served with the required notice of expiration of rental restrictions on October 31, 2023, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65863.10(b). As such, Ordinance 2024-16 governs your tenancy, which is why we are writing to you today.

The owner of the apartment community is filing a court action challenging the constitutionality of the Ordinance on several grounds. As you are aware from the notice provided to you over a year ago, the owner has fulfilled its contractual obligations under the expired regulatory agreements. The Ordinance, however, seeks to limit the amounts by which the owner can increase your rent without providing a mechanism by which the owner can seek a fair rate of return on the owner’s investment. Not only does this unfairly target this apartment community, but we anticipate the City’s actions in adopting this Ordinance will have a chilling effect on future affordable housing in the City of Santa Cruz. As such, the owner feels judicial intervention is warranted.

Because we do not know how long the litigation will take, we felt it prudent to advise you that the owner is not waiving and is, in fact, affirmatively retaining the owner’s right to enforce the Ninety Day Notice Change of Monthly Rent. The owner, however, will carry the unpaid balances forward as past due rent (without late fees or interest charges) pending resolution of said litigation. Should the owner prevail in such litigation, the full amount of the past due rent shall be due.

While the owner will carry the balances forward, the owner will refrain from filing an unlawful detainer action for failure to pay the increase amount during the pendency of the litigation at the trial court level. As such, so long as you pay the “current rent” identified in the Ninety Day Notice of Change of Monthly Rent while the trial court action is pending, we will not proceed with an unlawful detainer action against you. If you fail to timely pay the current monthly rent or otherwise breach your lease, we reserve the right to pursue all legal remedies available, including but not limited to an unlawful detainer action.

We hope this letter clarifies the owner’s position with respect to your rent obligations. If you have any questions, however, please contact Building Management at (408) 606-7702.

Sincerely,
Barron Ranches Inc.

Letter threatening retroactive rents for St George Residents by Barron Ranches Inc., an Affiliate of GVC St George and Green Valley Corporation

Legal Analysis and Critique of the Barron Ranches Letter

Key Legal Issues

Retroactive Rent Increases are Unenforceable
- California Civil Code § 827 governs changes to the terms of tenancy, including rent increases. The statute requires landlords to provide clear and legally compliant notice of rent increases. Rent increases, even if litigated and ruled valid, can only apply prospectively, not retroactively.
- Case: Muniz v. Wilson (1981) held that landlords cannot retroactively apply rent adjustments; the principle of prospective application ensures fairness and avoids undue hardship to tenants.
- California courts have repeatedly ruled that housing ordinances and state law override defective or untimely notices, rendering any retroactive enforcement null and void.
Santa Cruz Ordinance 2024-16 is Lawful and Binding
- Local governments have the authority to enact rent control measures under their police powers to protect public welfare and housing affordability. This authority is upheld under the California Constitution and reinforced by state law.
- Case: Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) upheld local rent control ordinances as constitutional, provided they do not deny landlords a fair return on their investment. Ordinance 2024-16 does not preclude the landlord from petitioning for a rent increase under justifiable grounds, preserving their right to a fair return.
Defective Notices Invalidate Rent Increases
- The letter claims compliance with Government Code § 65863.10, which governs notices of rental restrictions for assisted housing developments. However:
  - The Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) found the notices defective.
  - Case: Carter v. Cohen (2010) emphasized that notices of rent increases must strictly comply with statutory requirements, and defective or incomplete notices render rent increases invalid.
  - Even if notices were valid, Civil Code § 827 prohibits retroactive enforcement of disputed rent amounts. Rent increases must be properly noticed and prospective.
Unlawful Detainer Actions are Premature and Invalid
- The landlord’s statement that unpaid retroactive rent will be due upon litigation resolution is misleading and contrary to California law. Courts have consistently held that past due rent for periods when litigation was pending cannot form the basis for unlawful detainer actions unless explicitly authorized by law.
- Case: Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) ruled that unlawful detainer actions for nonpayment of rent are impermissible when there is an ongoing legal dispute over the validity of the rent amount.

California Supreme Court Decisions Supporting Tenants

Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988)
- This landmark decision upheld the constitutionality of rent control ordinances, affirming that such measures are a valid exercise of municipal police powers to prevent tenant displacement and ensure affordable housing. The Court recognized that landlords’ claims of unfair economic hardship must be balanced against tenants’ rights to stable housing.
Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2001)
- The California Supreme Court reiterated that landlords have no absolute right to set rents without limitation. Ordinances regulating rent increases, particularly for vulnerable populations, are constitutional if they allow landlords a mechanism to petition for fair returns. Ordinance 2024-16 provides such a mechanism, negating the landlord's claim of unfairness.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982)
- While not directly on point, this case affirmed the principle that property rights, including landlord rights, are not absolute and may be regulated by reasonable government action to protect tenants and public welfare.
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (1994)
- Though primarily addressing privacy, this decision affirmed that all actions, including litigation, must respect statutory frameworks and cannot violate the clear intent of state law. This principle applies to the landlord’s defective notices and attempts at retroactive rent collection.

Critique of Barron Ranches’ Claims

Misrepresentation of Legal Rights
- The landlord’s assertion that retroactive rent will be due upon litigation resolution directly contradicts California case law and statutory protections. Tenants are legally entitled to rely on the rent cap established by Ordinance 2024-16, and any litigation must address future, not past, rent increases.
- The landlord’s attempt to retain unpaid balances as “past due rent” during litigation is an overreach and undermines tenants’ rights under Civil Code § 827.
Baseless Constitutional Challenge
- The landlord’s claim that Ordinance 2024-16 is unconstitutional lacks merit. As upheld in Birkenfeld and Pennell, rent control ordinances are constitutional if they allow landlords a reasonable return on investment. Ordinance 2024-16 does not strip the landlord of this right.
Chilling Effect Argument is Speculative
- The letter suggests the ordinance will discourage affordable housing development. However, this argument has been rejected in similar cases, where courts found that rent control measures address critical housing shortages and do not impede lawful development.

Demand for Retraction and Legal Remedies

Tenants are well within their rights to demand an immediate retraction of the letter for the following reasons:

Misleading and Coercive Language:
- The letter falsely implies that tenants may owe retroactive rent, which is unenforceable under California law.
Tenant Harassment:
- The letter’s tone and timing may constitute harassment under Civil Code § 1942.5, which protects tenants from retaliation and coercion.
Violation of Local and State Law:
- The landlord’s refusal to comply with Ordinance 2024-16 and reliance on defective notices is a clear violation of state and local tenant protection laws.

Remedies Tenants May Pursue

File a Formal Complaint:
- Tenants should file complaints with the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and the California Attorney General’s office.
Initiate Legal Action for Declaratory Relief:
- Tenants may seek a court ruling affirming the validity of Ordinance 2024-16 and the inapplicability of retroactive rent increases.
Demand Damages for Harassment and Retaliation:
- Tenants may seek damages under Civil Code § 1942.5 for any actions that constitute harassment or unlawful attempts to collect unenforceable rent.

Conclusion

Barron Ranches Inc. has overstepped its legal bounds in attempting to enforce retroactive rent increases and challenge Ordinance 2024-16. California law is clear: rent increases must be prospective, properly noticed, and comply with both state and local regulations. Tenants are within their rights to demand an immediate retraction of this letter and pursue legal remedies if necessary. Barron Ranches is urged to cease misleading communications and comply with the lawful rent cap.

If Barron Ranches continues to pursue baseless claims, tenants will explore all available legal avenues to protect their rights and ensure compliance with California law.

Disclaimer:

This website is operated by the St. George Residents for Tenant Protections AKA Fight4StGeorgeSanta Cruz.com , an independent group of residents dedicated to providing informational resources about tenant rights and accessibility issues. While our association shares the same address as the St. George Apartments, owned and operated by Green Valley Corporation (GVC St. George), we are in no way affiliated with or endorsed by GVC St. George or its management. Our relationship with GVC St. George is solely that of tenants within the apartment complex.

The content provided on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. We do not offer any explicit or implied legal counsel. For specific legal concerns or advice, we recommend consulting with a qualified attorney. The information presented on this site is based on our understanding of tenant rights and relevant laws, but we make no guarantees regarding its accuracy or applicability to individual situations.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree that the St. George Residents for Tenant Protections is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

St George Residents for Tenant Protections Under AB 1482 and SB 567

·"We have your back." Rob Bonta, State Attorney General

·

·

·"We have your back." Rob Bonta, State Attorney General · ·