Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,885 chars

4
       We observe that in California, Evidence Code section 669 "codifies the common
law doctrine of negligence per se, pursuant to which statutes and regulations may be used
to establish duties and standards of care in negligence actions." (Elsner v. Uveges, supra,
34 Cal.4th at p. 927, fn. omitted.) "Statutes may be borrowed in the negligence context
for one of two purposes: (1) to establish a duty of care, or (2) to establish a standard of
care. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 928, fn. 8; see Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc. (1967) 251
Cal.App.2d 689, 702-704 [rebuttable presumption of negligence arose from violation of
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act].) Appellants' complaint, however, did not allege
a negligence cause of action.
                                              24
leases involving illegal rental units. The essential goal of the federal law is to protect
vulnerable tenants at foreclosure. Its protective purpose to prevent abrupt dispossession
of tenants as a result of foreclosure would be frustrated if we accepted respondents'
argument that the PTFA does not apply to illegal rental units.
         In Carter v. Cohen (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1038 (Carter), a former tenant sued
her former landlord for damages for rent overpayments. (Id. at p. 1042.) She had leased
a detached guesthouse, which had been constructed without permits, located on a
residential property that also contained a house. (Ibid.) She claimed that the rent
increases, imposed by her former landlord after he bought the residential property,
exceeded the limits set by a municipal rent stabilization ordinance (RSO). (Ibid.) The
issue on appeal was whether former tenant was entitled to recover her excess rent
payments even though the guest house lacked a certificate of occupancy and was not
registered under the ordinance. (Id. at p. 1046.) The former landlord contended that the
action to recover excess rent payments failed as a matter of law because the rental
agreement was unlawful and outside the scope of the ordinance. (Id. at p. 1043.) He
maintained that the rental agreement was "void and unenforceable because the
guesthouse had been built without permits, lacked a certificate of occupancy, and was
unregistered under the RSO." (Id. at p. 1047.)
         The appellate court acknowledged that "[r]ental agreements that were constructed
without building permits or lack a certificate of occupancy are ordinarily regarded as
unlawful and void. [Citations.]" (188 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047.) "Generally, 'the courts
. . . will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks
compensation for an illegal act.' (Lewis & Queen v. N.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d
141, 150-151 . . . (Lewis & Queen).)" (Ibid.) But the appellate court refused to apply the
rule in that case because otherwise public policy would be thwarted. (Id. at pp. 1048-
1050.)

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text