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

2,166 chars

45
apartment. Nativi was removed from her home by police. Since she did not have enough
money for the first and last month rental payments and security deposit on a new
apartment for her son and herself, they slept on the floor of a friend's studio apartment,
which was less than 15 feet by 15 feet.
       On November 2, 2009, Nadia Aziz, a Bay Area Legal Aid attorney and one of the
attorneys of record representing appellants, sent a letter informing Deutsche Bank that
appellants had lost possession of premises and demanding that appellants be restored to
the property. The letter, which was actually addressed to Diaz at Advisors, indicated that
appellants had been tenants at the property for three years, they had rented the converted
garage unit, and Nativi had prepaid rent to the former owner for the months of August
and September 2009. A copy of the written lease, which was attached to the letter,
indicated that the lease term continued through June 1, 2010. The letter asserted that the
federal PTFA requires a bank to honor a tenancy agreement for the remaining term of the
lease if the lease was entered before the foreclosure sale. It requested that appellants "be
compensated for damage to their property as a result of the new tenants illegally entering
their unit and throwing their property out at your instruction" and that appellants "be
restored to the premises and be allowed to remain in the premises until the end of the
lease term on June 1, 2010."
       Deutsche Bank responded by letter, dated November 9, 2009. Counsel for
Deutsche Bank stated in the letter that it had not rekeyed the property, disposed of
appellants' personal property, or taken possession of the property and it had not instructed
anyone else to do so. The letter advised that appellants would "have to regain access to
the Property, and seek redress for their alleged damages, from the persons responsible."
In the letter, counsel asserted that appellants were entitled only to a 90-day notice to
vacate, which had been posted on the property on August 25, 2009. The letter warned
that if appellants failed to vacate the premises by November 23, 2009, eviction

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text