Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)

Citation: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Parent Document: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-10-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3006950/boston-llc-v-juarez/ ↗

Full Text

1,551 chars

Cases cited by defendant for the proposition that a breach’s materiality may be used to
defend against an eviction are not on point, because none discuss the applicability of a
forfeiture clause. (See, e.g., Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn Motor Hotels, Inc. (1987) 195
Cal.App.3d 1032, 1051.) We are also not persuaded Foundation Dev. Corp. v. Loehmann’s
(1990) 163 Ariz. 438 (Loehmann’s) warrants reversing the judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Loehmann’s considered portions of a lease which required that a tenant pay a common area
charge within a specified amount of time or be subject to eviction. The court held that,
notwithstanding the lease’s forfeiture clause, which provided any breach would justify eviction,
“a material provision of a lease may be breached in such a trivial manner that to enforce a
forfeiture would be unconscionable and inequitable. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 446.) We are not
bound by Loehmann’s (see Amerigraphics, Inc. v. Mercury Casualty Co. (2010) 182
Cal.App.4th 1538, 1553), but, more importantly, as previously discussed, defendant has not
contended, and we do not consider, whether the forfeiture clause, or its enforcement, in the case
sub judice was unconscionable. Further, Loehmann’s stated “an overwhelming majority of
courts has concluded, without reference to a specific statutory provision, that a lease may not be
forfeited for a trivial or technical breach even where the parties have specifically agreed that
‘any breach’ gives rise to the right of termination.” (Loehmann’s, supra, 163 Ariz. at p. 445.)

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text