Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2014)

Citation: Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2014)
Parent Document: Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-06-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2677838/erlach-v-sierra-asset-servicing-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,341 chars

9
property of the landlord. (Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v.
Ham (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 330, 339.)7
        Significantly, 40 years ago, in Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616
(Green), our Supreme Court recognized that where occupancy itself is not illegal, but the
property does not conform to certain housing or building codes (as in this case) and the
defects are, by definition, correctable, the tenant may, at his or her option, remain in
possession and is relieved of the obligation to pay rent, but is liable for the reasonable
value of the use and occupancy of the property in its defective condition. (Id. at pp. 638-
639.)
        In sum, we conclude that when Sierra bought the property at the foreclosure sale
on November 12, 2010, appellant's tenancy had not been terminated; appellant had paid
rent to extend his tenancy through to the end of November. The trial court erred in
determining that the red-tagging of the property had terminated appellant's tenancy.
        We point out that new owners of rental property are required to address
outstanding code violations even if they were caused by the previous owner of the
property. (See Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46, 57, 59 (Knight); Hawthorne
Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Signal Hill (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 148, 162.)

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text