section 1951

Citation: section 1951
Parent Document: 250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2005-07-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2281319/250-llc-v-photopoint-corpusa/ ↗

Full Text

1,261 chars

250 contends that, given the sheer size of the security deposit, it must have been intended to serve as security for the payment of rent that would be owed after PhotoPoint defaulted. While we would agree with that assertion, the problem for 250 is that a waiver of section 1950.7 was not the only means by which the whole of the security deposit could have been applied against future rent under the lease. The lease gave 250 the option to proceed under section 1951.4, keep the lease in effect, and continue to collect the rent as it became due. As previously explained, the security deposit could have been retained in that situation because 250 would not have received possession of the premises. Thus, if 250 had followed section 1951.4, it could have applied the security deposit against the monthly rent as it became due until the deposit was exhausted. Instead, it elected under section 1951.2 to terminate the lease and PhotoPoint’s right of possession thereunder, and thereby triggered the duty to return the security deposit as provided in section 1950.7. Since the lease provided a way to apply the security deposit against future rent without a waiver of section 1950.7, no such waiver need be implied to effectuate the large security deposit. *720

Other Sections in This Document (165)

Full Text