Case Is A Good One For Use of Legislative History When Confronting An Ambiguous Statute.
Government Code section 65589.5(k) provides that the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff proposing “the housing development” under the Not-In-My-Back-Yard law, which usually would be a fee-shifting provision that was pro-developer in the right circumstances.
The issue in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, Case No. F065494 (5th Dist. Aug. 8, 2013) (published), authored by a 3-0 panel by Justice Franson, was whether fee recovery was only allowed when the “the housing development” in question contains affordable housing.
The ultimate answer was “yes,” limited to affordable housing for fee recovery purposes.
However, this case is very instructive for all practitioners on what species of legislative history wlll be credited by an appellate court. Certainly, the last report or analysis for a legislative bill, available on the Legislative Counsel’s official website, usually will be given weight. Also, the Legislature’s use of the word “the” will have significant specific limiting impact. Good reading when you get into a statute with more than one rational interpretation, where legislative history must be resorted to when reaching the ultimate judicial conclusion.