Adamson Companies v. Zipp, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984)

Citation: Adamson Companies v. Zipp, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984)
Parent Document: Adamson Companies v. Zipp, 163 Cal. App. 3d 1 (1984)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1984-11-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139884/adamson-companies-v-zipp/ ↗

Full Text

1,423 chars

*15 The foregoing provides overwhelming evidence that the Legislature's purpose in providing nontenant notice under section 798.55, subdivision (b) was to protect the security and ownership interests of the nontenant owner. This provision bears no relationship to the essential purpose of mobilehome park eviction proceedings, which is to return possession of the leased site to the landlord. The nontenant entitled to notice has no possessory interest in the site upon which the mobilehome is situated. Therefore, a landlord's failure fully to satisfy the notice procedure as to them under former section 798.55, subdivision (b) cannot result in the forfeiture of their security or property interest. For, apart from the latter's right to cure a default in payment of rent or other charges under section 798.56, subdivision (d),[19] the nontenant owner enjoys no right to cure other nonpayment-related breaches by the tenant. (Civ. Code, § 798.56, subdivision (c).) Moreover, the tenant at best has only the most speculative benefit from notice to the nontenant: The tenant cannot compel such person to cure even a payment default under section 798.56, subdivision (d).[20] For these reasons we question, though we need not decide, whether a tenant has standing to raise as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding arising under the Mobilehome Residency Law the issue of defective notice to the nontenant.

Other Sections in This Document (89)

Full Text