13
result, the specter of successive trustees evicting tenants to take advantage of
the family move-in provision simply does not exist.10
Finally, a landlord who seeks eviction under the family move-in
provision must do so “in good faith, without ulterior reasons and with honest
intent.” (Rent Ord., § 37.9, subd. (a)(8).) “Requirements of good faith and
proper motive are ‘substantive limitations on eviction.’ ” (DeLisi v. Lam
(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 663, 676.) The designation of a trustee solely so that
trustee could take advantage of the family move-in provision would likely fail
this test.
D. The Judgment Cannot Be Affirmed on the Tenants’ Other Basis
for Demurring to the Complaint.
As mentioned above, the tenants also demurred to the complaint on the
basis that the notice of termination of tenancy “adds requirements more
onerous” than those of the Rent Ordinance. Under the Rent Ordinance, any
tenants who wish to assert they are protected from eviction or entitled to
additional payment based on a protected status must submit notice to the
landlord, but the notice of termination here requires the tenants to submit
notice to appellants’ counsel in a particular manner. We asked for and
received supplemental briefing from the parties on whether we must affirm
on this basis despite rejecting the trial court’s reason for sustaining the
demurrer. (See Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist., supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 967.)
We conclude that the judgment cannot be upheld on this ground.