12
Illegal Contract
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by ruling he could not recover possession of the
premises due to the illegality of the lease. This is not, in fact, what the trial court ruled. Rather,
the court found the unit consisted of “an illegally converted garage with kitchen and bathroom,”
constructed without the requisite permits and certificates of occupancy or completion (as
declared by the HCIDLA following the July 2 inspection), and that no valid registration
certificate had been issued. The trial court ruled, because the occupancy was illegal, the
underlying lease agreement was also void and unenforceable by either party, and plaintiff
therefore could not bring a UD action based on a three-day notice to perform covenants or quit.
(See Salazar v. Maradeaga, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 4 [“Where . . . an occupancy
violates a zoning or building code enacted for the benefit of the general public, the use itself is
illegal, and the defect is thus uncorrectable, the lease agreement is held to be void and
unenforceable by either party”]; see also Gombiner v. Swartz (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1365,
1372, fn. 3, quoting Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 515, 518 [“‘contracts entered into
in violation of [a] statute or ordinance are void . . . whether the act is malum in se or merely
malum prohibitum’”].)
Plaintiff’s concern that the trial court’s decision permanently deprives him of possession
of the property is not legitimate. The HCIDLA advised plaintiff, in its July 16 letter, of
LARSO’s procedure for eviction of a tenant in order to comply with a government order per
LAMC section 151.09(A)(11).13 Plaintiff was informed that, under these circumstances, the
landlord must: (1) “file with the HCIDLA a Declaration of Intent to Evict in Order to Comply
with a Government Agency’s Order”; (2) “serve the tenant with a 30 or 60 day written notice of
eviction attached to a copy of the Declaration of Intent to Evict”; and (3) “either pay relocation