Glendale Federal Bank v.
Hadden (1999) 73 C.A4th 1150 involved a lender who loaned tenants $332,500
secured by a deed of trust on their leasehold interests. The tenants defaulted
and were served with a notice to quit or pay rent after which an unlawful
detained action was brought. The court declared that the lease was forfeited.
Glendale Federal was not named or notified of the action. Glendale requested
permission to cure the deficient payments but the landlord refused. Glendale
Federal sued asking for declaratory relief. The Orange County Superior Court
granted summary judgment for the landlord. The Court of appeal affirmed. They
ruled that the unlawful detainer terminated the lender's lien interest in the
leasehold and the lender had no contractual right to receive notice of tenants'
default.
12
The case of Lee v. Baca
(1999) 73 C.A4th 1116 involved an unlawful detainer action against a tenant who
was delinquent in rent. After a writ of possession was issued the tenant filed
for bankruptcy and notified the Sheriff who indicated he would not enforce the
writ of possession until Lee obtained relief from the automatic stay.
Lee brought an action
against the Sheriff asking for damages and injunctive relief declaring that the
Sheriff was required by law to enforce writs of possession not withstanding a
post judgment bankruptcy petition. The Los Angeles County Superior Court
dismissed the action but Lee appealed.
The Court of Appeal
reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to trial as to damages and
attorney fees. The court pointed out that under California law, a tenant has no
legal or equitable interest remaining in rented property if a judgment for
possession has been entered in favor of the landlord. This case clarifies that
a sheriff must execute a writ of possession obtained prior to a tenant's filing
for bankruptcy or could be liable for lost rent.
13
The case of Amos v.
Alpha Property management (1999) 73 C.A.4th 895 involved a two-year old child
who was injured after falling through a hall window in an apartment building.
The window as 28 inches above the floor. While it had a screen, tenants would
remove the screen to throw garbage into a dumster. The lease stated
"Children are not allowed to play in hallways, stairways or other common
areas in the project". The defendants moved for summary judgement arguing they had no duty to assure a child did
not fall out of a window. the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary
judgment for the owners and managers.
The Court of Appeal
reversed ruling that the trial court erred in ruling that defendants had no duty
to assure that a minor child would not fall out of a low, open window (window
was kept open). The court held that a landlord must exercise due care for
residents' safety in areas under the landlord's control. The court ruled that
summary judgment was not proper and there was a triable issue as to whether the
defendants breached their duty of care by maintaining a low, open, unprotected
hallway window knowing that young children were likely to play there.
14