Section 1950

Citation: Section 1950
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

1,145 chars

Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted the landlord to retain the unclaimed residual of the class recovery for the landlord's own benefit. The trial court in this case made no findings and gave no reasons to support its conclusion that the landlord should be permitted to retain the unpaid residual or that would explain why it was fair and just for the landlord to do so. Instead, the trial court simply made the conclusory assertion that "[w]e do not find that the Fluid Recovery method is necessary to fulfill the purpose of this case." Given that it ordinarily does not further the purposes of the underlying action or promote justice to permit a defendant to retain the unpaid residual in a class action, the trial court's unexplained decision to the contrary was an abuse of discretion. This is especially so because the landlord here had previously attempted to evade section 1950.5's predecessor statute and to unlawfully retain security due its tenants by denominating the security a "nonrefundable cleaning fee." (See Bauman v. Islay Investments (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d 752 [106 Cal. Rptr. 889].) CONCLUSION

Other Sections in This Document (169)

Full Text