Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)

Citation: Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)
Parent Document: Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3159177/foster-v-britton/ ↗

Full Text

1,008 chars

A. Preemption
       The first question before us is whether the trial court correctly ruled that
section 827 does not preempt Rule 12.20.6 Whether Rule 12.20 is preempted by state law
is a question of law that we review de novo. (Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 335, 339; Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage (1993)
16 Cal.App.4th 383, 391–392.)
       Rule 12.20 provides in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any change in the terms
of a tenancy pursuant to Civil Code section 827, a tenant may not be evicted for violation
of a covenant or obligation that was not included in the tenant’s rental agreement at the
inception of the tenancy unless: (1) the change in the terms of the tenancy is authorized
by the Rent Ordinance or required by federal, state or local law; or (2) the change in the
terms of the tenancy was accepted in writing by the tenant after receipt of written notice
from the landlord that the tenant need not accept such new term as part of the rental
agreement.”

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text