EDC Associates Ltd v. Gutierrez
Decision Date | 16 March 1984 |
Docket Number | No. F002869,F002869 |
Citation | 153 Cal.App.3d 167,200 Cal.Rptr. 333 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 39 A.L.R.4th 1191 EDC ASSOCIATES, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Gloria GUTIERREZ, Defendant and Respondent. |
Plaintiff EDC Associates, Ltd., a California limited partnership (hereafter landlord), filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against defendant Gloria Gutierrez (hereafter tenant) in the Municipal Court of Fresno County. After trial the court issued judgment for tenant, finding that landlord's attempt at eviction was retaliatory in nature and that under the circumstances tenant's late tender of rent was excusable.
Landlord filed a notice of appeal to the superior court. The parties filed an "Agreed Statement on Appeal," and the matter came on for hearing before the appellate department of the superior court. The appellate department issued its decision reversing the judgment of the municipal court.
Tenant filed an application for certification to the Court of Appeal, the appellate department of the superior court granted same and we ordered the appeal transferred. (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 63; Code Civ.Proc., § 911.)
The following summary is taken from the "Agreed Statement on Appeal" filed in the appellate department of the superior court, and other documents in the superior court file.
In May 1981 landlord and tenant entered into a written rental agreement establishing a month-to-month tenancy at a monthly rental of $260 payable in advance on the first day of each month. In May 1982, landlord hired a new property manager for the complex in which tenant's apartment was located. That same month, landlord served upon tenant a 30-day notice of termination of tenancy, which was later withdrawn by landlord after negotiations with tenant.
Landlord served a second 30-day notice of termination of tenancy on tenant on June 3, 1982. On July 1, 1982, tenant made a complaint of discrimination to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), alleging that landlord was discriminating against her because of her Mexican ancestry. After investigation by DFEH, landlord and DFEH executed a written settlement agreement on July 26, 1982, which, inter alia, required landlord to acknowledge rescission of the June 3, 1982, notice of termination served on tenant.
Landlord served a third 30-day notice of termination of tenancy on tenant on August 30, 1982. Tenant again contacted DFEH and was advised that the agency would try to arrange a meeting with landlord's property manager. The DFEH representative erroneously advised tenant to withhold rent payments to landlord until a meeting could be held. Tenant had never before been late with a rent payment. The DFEH representative made three attempts to arrange the meeting, scheduling it once but then canceling it.
The rent due on September 1, 1982, was not paid. Landlord served a three-day notice to pay rent or quit on tenant on September 14, 1982. On September 30, 1982, tenant mailed a money order dated September 3, 1982, to landlord for her September rent. On October 2, 1982, defendant mailed to landlord a money order dated October 2, 1982, for her October rent.
On the issue of retaliatory purpose, tenant introduced testimony that landlord's property manager and his supervisor, both black, had insulted and harassed tenant and her family and made derogatory racial slurs about tenant and her daughter. Landlord's property manager had evicted four or five other Chicano families.
Landlord's defense was that tenant's adult daughter had violated apartment complex rules and subjected the property manager and his supervisor to insults and racial slurs. Neither party requested a statement of decision. (Code Civ.Proc., § 632.)
An opinion by the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court has gone so far as to hold that where the breach justifying forfeiture is nonpayment of rent, the tenant may cure the breach after a notice to pay rent or quit is served by paying the rent due. (Hyland Plastics Inc. v. Enders (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 11, 167 Cal.Rptr. 353.) 1
While the authorities cited in Hyland Plastics, supra, in support of the principle that nonpayment of rent can be cured as a matter of right by payment of the past due rent seem sufficient to uphold such a ruling (see Walker v. Houston (1932) 215 Cal. 742, 745-747, 12 P.2d 952; Owen v. Herzihoff (1906) 2 Cal.App. 622, 623-624, 84 P. 274), it is not necessary in the present case to go beyond the general principles of waiver to hold that landlord waived its right to obtain possession of the leased premises. The only evidence presented at trial reflected that tenant mailed money orders for the delinquent rent and for the next month's rent to landlord. No evidence suggested that landlord refused tender, returned the money orders or failed to negotiate them. 2 The landlord had the obligation of going forward with the evidence in order to prove that the money orders were not negotiated or that it took other action in insure that there was no waiver. As stated in Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal.2d 733, 760, 63 Cal.Rptr. 689, 433 P.2d 697:
Under these circumstances, landlord has waived its right to assert a forfeiture for failure to pay the rent on the date due.
The judgment of the municipal court is affirmed. Tenant will recover her costs.
The discussion in part II of the majority opinion resolves the litigation, but since the battlelines of the parties have been drawn around the tenant's defense of retaliatory eviction, I feel we should address the matter in order to make an alternative holding.
Landlord contends that a tenant in default of rent may not assert any retaliatory eviction defenses to an unlawful detainer action ostensibly based upon said nonpayment of rent. Landlord relies in support of its position on statutory interpretation, other state cases, and its timocratic view of desirable public policy.
Civil Code section 1942.5 sets forth the general statutory rules governing assertion of the defense of retaliatory eviction by tenant. 1 Subdivision (a) of that section relates to actions taken by a tenant because the hired premises are dilapidated or otherwise untenantable. It provides a limitation upon a lessor's power to recover possession of the leased premises, raise the rent, decrease services, or cause the tenant to "quit involuntarily" in retaliation for "exercise ... of his rights under this chapter or ... his complaint to an appropriate agency as to tenantability of a dwelling ... if the lessee ... is not in default as to the payment of his rent...." (Emphasis added.) 2 Subdivision (c), creates protections where habitability is not at issue, but the tenant has engaged in First Amendment activities. Unlike subdivision (a) it contains no reference to payment of rent. Landlord argues that a parallel requirement of current payment of rent must be implied as pertaining to subdivision (c) of the statute, pursuant to the principle of ejusdem generis.
The doctrine of ejusdem generis, a variation of nocitur a sociis (associated words), is described by 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction (Sands 4th ed. 1973) Intrinsic Aids, section 47.17, page 103, as follows: "Where general words...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gardner v. County of Los Angeles
...official poverty line. We must assume the omission of "care" in section 17000.5 is significant (EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 167, 172, 200 Cal.Rptr. 333; Kaiser Steel Corp. v. County of Solano (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 662, 667, 153 Cal.Rptr. 546), and that the provisi......
-
Smith v. Powdrill
...a 3-day Notice waive[ed] Plaintiffs' prior breach, making the 3-Day Notice moot." (Dfdts.' Reply at 2, citing EDC Associates, Ltd. V. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167, 170-71 (1984); Kern Sunset Oil Co. V. Good Roads Oil Co.,214 Cal. 435, 440 (1931); Salton Community Services Dist. V. Southa......
-
Smart Capital Invs. I v. Hawkeye Entm't (In re Hawkeye Entm't )
...and will not reverse the Order on this basis. See In re Sussex, 781 F.3d at 1071; see also EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal.App.3d 167, 170 (1984) (“It is a general rule that the right of a lessor to declare a forfeiture of the lease arising from some breach by the lessee is waive......
-
Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster
... ... Appellant Antun Foster ... Dennis ... P. Block of Dennis P. Block and Associates for Plaintiff and ... Respondent Runnymede Holdings, LLC ... ... OPINION ... ... Services Dist. v. Southard (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 526, ... 533; see also EDC Assocs., Ltd v. Gutierrez (1984) ... 153 Cal.App.3d 167, 170-171 ... [acceptance of rent after the notice period expires may ... constitute a waiver of ... ...
-
Real property torts
...Rptr. 707, 715 (1981)). • Acceptance of Rent After Date of Termination (Cal. Civ. ProC. Code §1945; EDC Assocs., Ltd. v. Gutierrez , 153 Cal. App. 3d 167, 170-171, 200 Cal. Rptr. 333, 334-335 (1984) (by accepting rent, the landlord effectively waives the tenant’s prior breach and creates a ......