Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)

Citation: Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
Parent Document: Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1995-03-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1436586/granberry-v-islay-investments/ ↗

Full Text

921 chars

Plaintiffs, a class of former tenants, sued for a refund of the amount by which the rent they had paid for the first 31 days of their tenancy exceeded the amount they paid in each of the following months. The court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that the increased rent paid during the first month was in fact rent and not a security deposit within the meaning of section 1950.5, subdivision (b),3 and therefore plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund. In an earlier appeal the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the character of the payment was a triable issue of fact. (Granberry v. Islay Investments, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d 382.) On remand, the court granted defendants leave to amend their answer to allege they were entitled to set off amounts owed to them for unpaid rent, repair, and cleaning if a jury were to find the increased rental payment was a refundable security deposit.

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text