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

2,156 chars

25
        The appellate court in Cohen stated that "the rule barring the enforcement of
unlawful contracts is not absolute." (Id. at p. 1048.) "An exception to that rule exists
" '[w]hen the Legislature enacts a statute forbidding certain conduct for the purpose of
protecting one class of persons from the activities of another, a member of the protected
class may maintain an action notwithstanding the fact that he has shared in the illegal
transaction. The protective purpose of the legislation is realized by allowing the plaintiff
to maintain his action against a defendant within the class primarily to be deterred. In
this situation it is said that the plaintiff is not in pari delicto. [Citations.]' ([Lewis &
Queen v. N.M. Ball Sons (1957) 48 Cal.2d] at p. 153 . . . , italics omitted.)" (Ibid.) When
this exception applies, "a plaintiff's awareness that he or she may be participating in
improper conduct does not bar relief under a statute if raising such a barrier would defeat
the aim of the statute." (Id. at p. 1050.) It noted that "[c]ourts have thus permitted parties
to obtain benefits under a law enacted for their protection, despite their participation in
transactions that contravened the law [citation]." (Id. at p. 1048.) The appellate court
concluded that "[b]ecause '[t]he protective purpose of the legislation [was] realized by
allowing [Carter] to maintain [her] action against [her landlord]' (Lewis & Queen, supra,
48 Cal.2d at p. 153), the trial court properly permitted her to assert her RSO claim." (Id.
at p. 1049.)
        Similarly in this case, permitting Deutsche Bank, the immediate successor in
interest in the foreclosed property, to invoke the general rule that illegal contracts are
unenforceable would allow it to circumvent the PTFA and frustrate its fundamental
public policy purpose. At this juncture, we need not resolve whether an immediate
successor in interest could lawfully terminate a bona fide tenancy for a term if a
municipality brought an enforcement action for code violations or whether the PTFA
would require the successor in interest to bring the property into compliance to avoid
liability.

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text