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

1,097 chars

The Chacons’ trial testimony also corroborated their intention at the time of executing the Stipulation was to return. Tania testified she had discussed the Stipulation with her father before he signed it and that they understood that it was “solely based on capital improvements getting done,” and that they would return to the apartment “once that three-month period had expired.” According to Tania, “[i]t was never an issue of, wow, we’re out of there for good. No, this was our home.” Jorge Sr., who signed the Stipulation, testified that when he signed it, he did not intend to give up his right to return to the property, did not intend to give up any right to have repairs made at the property, and did not intend to give up any of his rights under the rent ordinance. This extrinsic evidence provides substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the Stipulation gave Litke temporary possession of the apartment for up to three months to make repairs and the Chacons retained their rights under the Ordinance to reoccupy the premises. D. Litigation Privilege Inapplicable

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text