7
tenants cite, have made general references to trusts “owning” property.
(Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. L.M. Ross Law Group, LLP (2010)
184 Cal.App.4th 196, 208; Trustees of the Ken Lusby v. Piedmont Lumber
(N.D. Cal. 2015) 132 F.Supp.3d 1175, 1180; see, e.g., Fisch, Spiegler,
Ginsburg & Ladner v. Appel (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1810, 1812 (Appel).) But
these imprecise references are hardly compelling, particularly when the issue
being discussed did not involve an ownership distinction between a trust and
a trustee. (See Carolina Casualty, at p. 208 [“undisputed” that revocable
trust “owned” property, but settlor was effectively owner for purpose of
insurance policy provision]; Piedmont Lumber, at p. 1180 [court’s statement
that trust was an “owner[] of [the] property” based on public documents
stating that trustees of trust held title].) In any event, such comments do not
overcome the bedrock principle that a trustee holds legal title to property
held in trust.
C. Appellants as Trustees Qualify as a “Landlord” Under the Family
Move-in Provision.
Having concluded that appellants as trustees “hold a recorded fee
interest” in the building under rule 12.14(a), we turn to consider whether
they are also “a group of natural persons” under that rule and thereby qualify
as a “landlord” under Rent Ordinance section 37.9, subdivision (a)(8).