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

2,546 chars

9
Appellants did not produce evidence that the Bank, or those acting on its behalf,
directed or acquiesced in the removal of their personal property from the garage unit.
(Cf. Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004,
1015, 1032-1033, 1036 [summary adjudication on breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment
claim precluded where there was evidence that landlords acquiesced in removal of
furniture from apartment and their maintenance worker changed the locks at the direction
of resident's former employer who had leased the premises; Tooke v. Allen, supra, 85
Cal.App.2d 230, 233 [landlord, or his employees acting under his direction, interfered
with tenant's peaceable possession through "campaign of annoyance" that included
breaking her lock, entering her apartment, and removing "a typewriter, clothing, wearing
apparel and other personal belongings and keepsakes"].)
55
enjoyment.10 (See Rest.2d Prop., Landlord and Tenant, § 6.1, pp. 222-223, & coms. c
and e thereto, pp. 225, 227.)
We turn next to appellants' claim that Diaz should have investigated their claims
that they were tenants, Diaz knew or should have known that they had a right to return to
the garage unit, and respondents breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to
restore appellants to the garage unit. The evidence indicates that Advisors' employees
initially learned that someone was living in the garage at the time of foreclosure. When
appellant Perez tried to return home in September 2009 after being away, he found that
all his family's things been removed from the garage unit and strangers were living in the
main house. Diaz learned of the incident only after the fact.
Appellants did not produce admissible evidence that the post-foreclosure
occupants who prevented appellant Perez from returning to live in the garage unit in
September 2009 were claiming as tenants under the Bank.11 Consequently, even if
Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th 578 is understood as requiring a
landlord to take action against a tenant who is disrupting the quiet enjoyment of another
tenant, appellants did not produce evidence showing that it applied to the conduct of that
second group of post-foreclosure occupants. Appellants failed to provide evidence from
which a reasonable trier of fact could infer that the conduct of the Bank, or anyone acting
on its behalf, was a cause ("a contributing factor") of the actions that kept appellant Perez

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text