§ 12

Citation: § 12
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

799 chars

The ALJ ruled the unlawful detainer judgment did not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect, because the petition for an extension of time did not involve the same cause of action or identical issues. He further ruled that section 37.9, subdivision (a)(ll), grants the tenants the right to reoccupy the unit and is not subject to forfeiture, despite contrary language in the 60-day notice and no matter whether the tenants vacate voluntarily or involuntarily by court order. The unlawful detainer judgment, prepared by the landlord’s attorney, did not grant forfeiture of the lease and the request for forfeiture had been stricken from the complaint. Finally, the ALJ concluded nothing in the Stipulation indicated that the Chacons intended to waive or relinquish their right to reoccupy. 5

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text