Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Kriz v. Taylor, 92 Cal. App. 3d 302 (1979)

Citation
Kriz v. Taylor, 92 Cal. App. 3d 302 (1979)
Parent Document
Kriz v. Taylor, 92 Cal. App. 3d 302 (1979)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1979-04-25

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text

1,124 chars
prior judgment and finding, retaliation must be deemed the dominant purpose of Landlord in attempting to terminate the tenancy. The 60-day provision of section 1942.5 is therefore applicable. Landlord’s interpretation that he can serve such a retaliatory notice immediately so long as he does not recover possession within 60 days would substantially frustrate the statutory purpose that “the lessor may not. . . cause the lessee to quit involuntarily.” On the other hand, the language in the statute does not support Tenant insofar as she claims that the service of a notice within such 60-day period is prohibited even if the resultant termination date falls after the end of the 60-day period. The date of termination of the tenancy is the critical date since the tenant who quits on or after such date does so “involuntarily.” The 30-day notice herein resulted in the termination of the tenancy 37 days after the prior judgment. It stated no grounds upon which the lessor, in good faith, sought to recover possession. Therefore, it was ineffective to terminate Tenant’s rights. The Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed as Moot