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

1,285 chars

Defendant further contends the forfeiture clause was invalid because it violated public
policy. (See Civ. Code, § 1667 [“That is not lawful which is: [¶] 1. Contrary to an express
provision of law; [¶] 2. Contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited;
or, [¶] 3. Otherwise contrary to good morals”].) Defendant argues the forfeiture clause
violates public policy because it would allow evictions based on breaches regardless of their
severity, meaning tenants could be evicted for violating covenants such as annoying other
tenants (see rental agreement paragraph 12 [“Renter shall not . . . in any way annoy any other
renter”].) Defendant claims allowing evictions for annoying conduct such as having a crying
newborn or playing “displeasing music” would violate public policy, rendering the forfeiture
clause invalid. The clause is not invalid as against public policy. The present case did not
involve a breach of the character or magnitude as those propounded by defendant. In evictions
based on three-day notices to perform or quit, as in the present case, breaches would only
constitute valid grounds for eviction if they were not cured within the notice period, meaning
tenants could not be evicted based on single incidents of annoying their neighbors.

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text