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

888 chars

Were we to conclude the Stipulation was ambiguous, ample extrinsic evidence supports the trial court’s interpretation. The Stipulation arose out of Litke’s attempts to enforce the unlawful detainer judgment by evicting the Chacons. That judgment entitled him to only temporary possession and it strains credulity that the Chacons would give up their right to return to the premises in return for a seven-day stay of eviction. The Chacons’ conduct also confirms that they understood the purpose of the Stipulation was to facilitate their temporary removal. They had proposed to stay in the portion of the apartment unaffected by repairs. That may also account for the Stipulation’s reference to “complete” possession. Two months after they vacated the apartment, Jorge Sr. wrote Litke, advising that they were “ready to move back” as soon as repairs were finished within the 90-day period.

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text