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

2,193 chars

29
beginning on June 1, 2007. They leased by the year from the former owner, Daisy
Cazzali (Cazzali) and the most recent lease commenced on June 1, 2009. Deutsche Bank
"purported to foreclose" on the property and, as trustee, took title to it. After it acquired
title, the bank contracted with AMHSI to service the property and AMHSI hired a local
real estate company, XL Advisors Inc. dba Advisors Real Estate Group (Advisors), to
prepare the property for sale and oust its occupants. Advisors was operated by real estate
agent Rob Roham and it employed Paulette Diaz. Appellants did not receive any notice
from respondents acknowledging their rights as tenants under the PTFA.
       Appellants further generally averred the following. All of their "belongings were
removed from their home and thrown into the backyard, where the belongings were
destroyed." Respondents deprived them of possession of their home by unlawfully
evicting them and refusing to allow them to return to the premises. When appellants tried
to access their home they were removed from the property by the police at respondents'
instruction. Appellant Perez returned from a trip at the end of September 2009 to find all
of his and his mother's belongings thrown out into the yard. The police were called to the
property and Diaz, acting on behalf of respondents, instructed police to exclude appellant
Perez from the property. When Perez called Diaz the following day and asked to be
restored to possession, Diaz did nothing to assist him. When appellant Nativi tried to
return to the property after returning from a trip at the end of October, Diaz instructed
that Nativi be excluded from the property. On November 2, 2009, appellant Nativi's
"representative" contacted Diaz and asked for appellants to be restored to the premises.
Respondents never acknowledged their lease as required by the PTFA and they refused to
"uphold [appellants'] right to possession, . . . acknowledge their tenancy, and . . . to
restore [them] to possession . . . ."
       With respect to the pleaded causes of action for "Wrongful Eviction in Tort" (First
Cause of Action), "Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment" (Second Cause of

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text