The owner of a mobilehome park situated in an unincorporated part of a county was subject to county rent control ordinances. The area of the county which included the mobile home park later incorporated to form a city, retaining for 120 days all county ordinances, unless changed by the city. Before the 120-day sunset period concluded, the city adopted the county’s rent control ordinance to cover the mobile home park. The mobile home park owner claimed the city’s new rent control ordinance was unenforceable since the incorporation of the area of the county which included the mobile home park to form a new city and the subsequent 120-day sunset period gave the mobile home park owner a reasonable expectation the rent control ordinance would end and thus allow him to collect rent at market rates uninhibited by rent control. The city claimed the rent control ordinance was enforceable and allowed the mobile home park owner to receive a reasonable return on his investment since the county ordinance enforcing rent control was in effect at all times, thus giving the mobile home park owner no expectation the city would end the rent control ordinance. The Federal 9th circuit court of appeals held a rent control ordinance imposed on a mobile home park located on an unincorporated county area incorporated as a new city is enforceable since rent control ordinances were in effect at all times, and thus did not prevent the mobile home park owner from receiving a reasonable return on his investment. [Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (December 22, 2010) _ F3d_]
