Cavanaugh v. State of California, 85 Cal. App. 3d 354 (1978)

Citation: Cavanaugh v. State of California, 85 Cal. App. 3d 354 (1978)
Parent Document: Cavanaugh v. State of California, 85 Cal. App. 3d 354 (1978)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1978-10-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2130433/cavanaugh-v-state-of-california/ ↗

Full Text

1,033 chars

While it is clear that all the plaintiffs became tenants after the state acquired the property for a public use, the complaint does not allege whether the plaintiffs had notice of that fact at the time they became tenants. This is a critical omission because, as I interpret the statute of which section 7260 is a part, postacquisition tenants with notice are not entitled to moving expenses and relocation assistance. In fact such tenants receive equivalent compensation in the form of a reduction in rent occasioned by the knowledge of both parties to the bargain that the tenancy is necessarily interim, subject to the preexisting plan of the landlord to commit the property to the public use for which it was acquired. Thus the postacquisition tenant with knowledge in a very real sense recovers the prospective costs of moving and relocation in the form of discounted rent; I do not believe the Legislature intended that he also receive a windfall in the form of the statutory benefits to which a “displaced person” is entitled.

Other Sections in This Document (69)

Full Text