Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)

Citation: Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Parent Document: Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2010-01-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2256036/chacon-v-litke/ ↗

Full Text

697 chars

The contention underlying most of Litke’s assertions of error is that the Chacons had no right to reoccupy the premises after they were evicted. He contends that they forfeited that right under the Ordinance when they held over in violation of the 60-day notice, that he was awarded permanent possession by the judgment in the unlawful detainer action, and that, in any event, the Chacons gave up any right to reoccupy the premises when they executed the Stipulation, agreeing “to vacate and surrender complete possession of the subject premises to [Litke] on or before the move out date.” He is wrong on all counts. A. The Ordinance Litke asserts the Ordinance allows a right of reoccupation only

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text