Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Citation: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Parent Document: Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2006-08-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2255746/small-property-owners-v-city-co... ↗

Full Text

753 chars

to the landlord in being able to hold the security deposit. As the trial court found: “By holding [the tenant’s security deposit], the landlord secures certain obligations of the tenant, thereby avoiding potential costs of collection should such obligations be breached. Indeed, it is common sense to conclude that without such a deposit, many times landlords would have no hope of collecting from their tenants for the breach of obligations secured by the deposit. This gives the landlord an important potential economic benefit that also offsets the 5% interest cost to the tenant. Clearly, the fact that tenants get interest facilitates the taking of security deposits by landlords.” The trial court was not unreasonable in drawing this conclusion. 9

Other Sections in This Document (187)

Full Text