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

3,054 chars

7
Civil Code section 798.88, provides in part: "(a) In addition to any right under
Article 6 (commencing with Section 798.55) to terminate the tenancy of a homeowner,
any person in violation of a reasonable rule or regulation of a mobilehome park may be
enjoined from the violation as provided in this section. [¶] (b) A petition for an order
enjoining a continuing or recurring violation of any reasonable rule or regulation of a
mobilehome park may be filed by the management . . . ." Civil Code section 798.56,
subdivision (b), of the Mobilehome Residency Law requires a tenancy to be terminated
by the management when "[c]onduct by the homeowner or resident, upon the park
premises . . . constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners or residents."
51
disruptive tenant's] compliance), and thereafter, the extent of the [complaining tenant's]
recoverable damages." (Id. at p. 593.)
Respondents take the position that they had no obligation to act, citing Sarina v.
Pedrotti (1930) 103 Cal.App. 203, 206-207, which stated: "The landlord's covenant of
quiet enjoyment and possession of leased premises 'is equivalent to a stipulation that the
lessee shall not be rightfully disturbed in his possession during the term, not that he shall
not be disturbed at all. The lessor is not responsible under the covenant for the acts of a
mere trespasser, though the effect of the trespasser's acts may be to deprive the lessee of
the benefits of the lease, the latter's remedy being against the trespasser, not against the
lessor.' 15 Cal.Jur. 635." That statement accurately conveys the traditional view
concerning the extent of a landlord's liability under an express or implied covenant of
quiet enjoyment. (See Carty v. Blauth (1915) 169 Cal. 713, 718 ["It is a general rule that
an express or implied covenant for quiet possession secures the lessee against acts or
hindrances of the lessor and persons deriving their title through him, or from a paramount
title, but not from the acts of strangers. [Citations.]"]; McDowell v. Hyman (1897) 117
Cal. 67, 70-71 [" 'This covenant, whether expressed or implied, means that the tenant
shall not be evicted or disturbed by the lessor or by persons deriving title from him, or by
virtue of a title paramount to his, and implies no warranty against the acts of strangers. It
is equivalent to a stipulation that the lessee shall not be rightfully disturbed in his
possession during the term, not that he shall not be disturbed at all.' [Citation.]"]; Playter
v. Cunningham (1862) 21 Cal. 229, 233 ["The lessor is responsible upon the covenant for
his own acts, and for the acts of others claiming by title paramount to the lease, but he is
not responsible for the acts of a mere trespasser. The effect of these acts may be to
deprive the lessee of the benefit of the lease, but the remedy is against the person by
whom the acts were committed, and not against the lessor."]; see also Lost Key Mines v.
Hamilton (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 569, 573.)

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text