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

2,492 chars

5
       A lease's covenant of quiet enjoyment runs with the land and binds successors in
interest by privity of estate. (See Stillwell Hotel Co. v. Anderson (1935) 4 Cal.2d 463,
467-468; see also Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson (1995) 12 Cal.4th 345,
353, fn. omitted; Civ. Code, §§ 1460, 1462-1463.)
                                             31
expanded, and in this state, for example, it insulates the tenant against any act or omission
on the part of the landlord, or anyone claiming under him, which interferes with a tenant's
right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.
[Citation.]" (Petroleum Collections Inc. v. Swords (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 841, 846; see
Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 589-590.)
       It is not necessary to show that the landlord acted with the subjective intent to
compel the tenant to leave the property or deprive the tenant of quiet enjoyment. (Pierce
v. Nash (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 606, 613, 614, fn. 1.) There is a "presumption that a
landlord intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts; and where the acts of
the landlord effectively deprive the tenant of the use and enjoyment of the premises, the
intent to evict is implied from the character of the acts done. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp.
613-614, fn. omitted.)
       "[A]ny disturbance of the tenant's possession by the lessor or at his procurement
. . . which has the effect of depriving the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of the
premises, amounts to a constructive eviction, provided the tenant vacates the premises
within a reasonable time. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 612-613; see Kulawitz v. Pacific
Woodenware & Paper Co. (1945) 25 Cal.2d 664, 670 ["Any interference by the landlord
by which the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises amounts to a
constructive eviction if the tenant so elects and surrenders possession, and the tenant will
not be liable for rentals for the portion of the term following his eviction. [Citations.]"].)
The Supreme Court stated in Standard Live Stock Co. v. Pentz (1928) 204 Cal. 618, 625,
that "the covenant of quiet possession in a lease is not breached until there has been an
actual or constructive eviction." Nevertheless, some authorities recognize that a tenant
may sue for breach of the covenant while remaining in possession. (See e.g. Guntert v.
City of Stockton (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 131, 141; see also Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates,

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text