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

2,117 chars

49
was foreseeable that "one of the short-term tenant[s] would do whatever was necessary to
secure that prize, including ridding the property of [appellants] and their possessions,"
(2) failing to reinstate appellants to the premises after appellants tried to enter their rental
unit because Diaz knew, or should have known, that appellants had a right to return there
and (3) refusing to assist them in regaining possession of the leased premises in response
to their attorney's November 2009 demand letter.
Appellants cite Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th 578 for
the principle that a landlord may breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to
take action when a third-party disturbs a tenant's quiet enjoyment where the landlord has
the ability to rectify the situation but refuses to do so. The case does not stand for this
broad proposition.
Although Andrews recognized "[t]he perpetrator of the interference with the
tenants quiet enjoyment need not be the landlord personally," it also observed that "an
actionable breach" may occur "where the interference is caused by a neighbor or tenant
claiming under the landlord. (Petroleum Collections Inc. v. Swords, supra, 48
Cal.App.3d at p. 846 . . . ; see, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503,
512 . . . [shopping center tenant claimed covenant was breached by landlords failure to
remedy ventilation problems caused by adjoining dry cleaning business].)" (Id. at p. 590,
fn. omitted, italics added.) In Andrews, the interference with tenants' quiet enjoyment
was caused by a disruptive tenant who leased the adjacent space in a mobile home park
from the park owner. (Id. at pp. 583.)
Unlike the present case, Andrews involved the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ.
Code, § 798 et seq.), which "regulates relations between the owners and the residents of
mobilehome parks." (Cacho v. Boudreau (2007) 40 Cal.4th 341, 345.) Andrews
observed that the Mobilehome Residency Law "expressly preserves the park owners[']
ability to secure the quiet enjoyment of mobilehome park tenants by authorizing park

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text