EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)

Citation: EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)
Parent Document: EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1984-03-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2116822/edc-associates-ltd-v-gutierrez/ ↗

Full Text

1,595 chars

4 Contrary to tenant's assertion, Vargas v. MunicipalCourt (1978) 22 Cal.3d 902 [150 Cal.Rptr. 918, 587 P.2d 714] cannot be taken as support for absence of a rent payment requirement. In that case, the tenants were given housing by their employer as a condition of employment. (Id., at pp. 906-907.) The employer discharged the employees, and while the Agricultural Labor Relations Board was adjudicating the employees' claims of unfair labor practices, the employer filed an unlawful detainer action in the municipal court. (Id., at p. 907.) The Supreme Court held that the municipal court had jurisdiction to hear the unlawful detainer action, but that it must permit the tenants/employees to raise as a defense that their employment relationship had been unlawfully terminated. (Id., at pp. 913, 916-917.) Since the employment relationship was the equivalent of rent payments, the tenants/employees were in effect arguing that the employer was responsible for the "nonpayment" of rent. In addition, the proceedings were governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 1, which provided, in relevant part, that where the tenant occupied the premises because of his status as an employee, he would be in unlawful detainer only if the employer-employee relation was "lawfully terminated." (See Vargas, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 907, fn. 1.) Thus, if the tenant/employee could prove unlawful termination of the employment relationship, he was not unlawfully detaining the premises. Employment being the equivalent of rent payments, a victorious tenant would never have been in default.

Other Sections in This Document (170)

Full Text