Author: admin

Cal. Civ. Code § 1671 governs liquidated damages in a contract for real property (i.e., a residential or commercial lease) and states in pertinent part: “a provision in a contract liquidating damages for the breach of the contract is void except that the parties to such a contract may agree therein upon an amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof, when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the actual damage.” (Emphasis added.) Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5 governs security deposits and provides for the manner with which a landlord may apply a security deposit. A reasonable interpretation of both statutes would suggest that a liquidated damages provision may be added to a lease agreement in contemplation of potential damages or a breach wherein the scope and amount of resulting damage cannot be reasonably anticipated by the contracting parties. Thus, a liquidated damages provision triggered by a repair related breach may not be enforceable if the cost or amount of repair is readily anticipated by the contracting parties upon execution.

If you are a Landlord in Los Angeles and have a Residential or Commercial Lease inquiry, contact one of our Los Angeles Real Estate Attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.

Lease agreements should include a tenant’s email address.  There are many practical reasons for capturing a tenant’s email.  One in particular is for purposes of notifying a former tenant of abandoned property.  If the former tenant provided the landlord with the tenant’s email address, the landlord may also send abandonment notices by email and comply with the statutory requirements. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1983.  While an email may not substitute for the notice provisions in a lease, the parties may certainly mutually agree to receiving notice via email.

The expedited procedural framework for unlawful detainer cases is necessary to prevent frustration of the summary proceedings by the introduction of delays and extraneous issues. See Vasey v. California Dance Co., (1977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 742, 747. Therefore, a UD under C.C.P. § 1161 will only be interrupted by consolidation with a civil action where complex issues of title exist. See Martin-Bragg, (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 367, 393; see also Mehr v. Superior Court, (1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 1044, 1049; see also Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980), 108 Cal. App. 3d 141, 145.

In Martin-Bragg, a property owner filed an unlawful detainer action against a tenant for failure to pay rent. See Martin-Bragg supra, 219 Cal. App. 4th at 371. The tenant subsequently filed a civil quiet title action against the property owner, alleging that he was the true owner of the property, and that due to a complex personal relationship with the property owner “he had caused title to the property to be transferred to her, with the understanding that she would hold it in trust for him.” Id. at 372. The Court concluded that the complex issues of title raised by the tenant required a departure from the summary procedures of the unlawful detainer action. Id. at 395.

In Mehr, an unlawful detainer action was filed by the purchaser of a property at a trustee’s sale. See Mehr supra, 139 Cal. App. 3d at 1046. The defaulted borrowers filed a separate civil case, alleging that the foreclosure sale was void because the foreclosure trustee and its attorneys, along with others, conspired with the purchaser to obtain possession of the property by unlawful means. Id. at 1049-1050. The borrowers alleged that they were lulled into believing they could exercise their right of redemption on August 14, but the sale occurred without their knowledge on August 13, and the property was awarded to the sole bidder for an inadequate price. Id. at 1050. In ordering a writ of mandate granting the borrowers’ motion for stay of execution of the post-judgment writ of possession pending appeal, the Court ruled that the fact-intensive question of fraudulent acquisition of title was not fully litigated at the unlawful detainer trial. Id.

In Asuncion, a hard money lender paid off a delinquent second mortgage and other debts of two borrowers in exchange for a grant deed to the property, subject to a 45-day option for the borrowers to reacquire the property by executing a promissory note in favor of the lender on very unfavorable terms. See Asuncion supra, 108 Cal. App. 3d at 143-144. Upon the expiration of the option, the lender recorded the grant deed and immediately commenced unlawful detainer proceedings. Id. at 144. The borrowers filed a separate civil action seeking to quiet title and alleging fraud, usury, unfair business practices and truth in lending violations. Id. at 143. The Court found that the title issues raised by the borrowers were sufficient to merit either a stay of the eviction proceedings pending adjudication of the title issues, or consolidation of the actions. Id. at 146-147.

Thus, short of complex title issues raised as a defense to an unlawful detainer action, Evictions would likely not be consolidated with a civil action. If you are a landlord and are seeking to evict a tenant, contact one of our Los Angeles Eviction Attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.

There are certain rights which cannot be waived by a tenant even though that tenant might agree and put said waiver or modification in writing. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1953, certain rights agreed waived or modified by a tenant shall be void and contrary to public policy including: (1) A tenant’s rights or remedies under Sections 1950.5 (security deposit) or 1954 (entry by landlord); (2) His right to assert a cause of action against the lessor which may arise in the future; (3) His right to a notice or hearing required by law; (4) His procedural rights in litigation in any action involving his rights and obligations as a tenant; (5) His right to have the landlord exercise a duty of care to prevent personal injury or personal property damage where that duty is imposed by law.

If you are a landlord and have a question regarding your residential or commercial lease, contact one of our Lease Attorneys in Los Angeles for a free consultation or case evaluation.