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

1,946 chars

52
We recognize, however, that "a landowner cannot interfere with his tenant's
possession or enjoyment by allowing others to enter upon the land. [Citation.]" (Brown
Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton (1964) 61 Cal.2d 855, 858.) A residential tenant has a
"right to recover damages for deprivation of peaceful possession occasioned by a
succession of [a landlord's] wrongful acts" that result in constructive eviction. (Tooke v.
Allen, supra, 85 Cal.App.2d at p. 237.) A "landlord is bound to refrain from action
which interrupts the tenant's beneficial enjoyment. [Citations.]"8 (Guntert v. City of
Stockton (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 131, 138.)
In considering whether the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find
the Bank, as landlord, was liable for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or
wrongful eviction in the unusual circumstances of this case, we find section 6.1 of the
Restatement Second of Property, Landlord and Tenant, helpful. It provides in part:
"Except to the extent the parties to a lease validly agree otherwise, there is a breach of the
landlord's obligations if, during the period the tenant is entitled to possession of the
leased property, the landlord, or someone whose conduct is attributable to him, interferes
with a permissible use of the leased property by the tenant." (Rest.2d Prop., Landlord
and Tenant, § 6.1, italics added, pp. 222-223.) Comment b to that section explains: "An
unauthorized possession of all or any part of the leased property by the landlord, or
someone whose conduct is attributable to him, is an eviction of the tenant that could be
cured by the tenant himself. The rule of this section does not require [the tenant] to take
the legal steps available to him to eliminate the eviction, although that option is open to
him. Instead he may treat the landlord as in default and pursue the remedies available to
him under this section for the default." (Id. at p. 223.)

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text