1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2008)

Citation: 1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2008)
Parent Document: 1100 PARK LANE ASSOCIATES v. Feldman, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2008)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2008-02-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2279577/1100-park-lane-associates-v-feldman/ ↗

Full Text

1,354 chars

Hawkins declared that he had four conversations with one or both of the Feldmans. In the first, he advised them that he believed their occupancy was in violation of the master lease and he “provided them with the following choices: vacate voluntarily, enter into a direct tenancy with the ownership, or face an unlawful detainer lawsuit. ...” The second and third conversations were related to service of the unlawful detainer, and the last was when Konrad Feldman provided Hawkins with the keys upon surrender of the apartment. Attorney Seigel’s declaration stated that he had “reviewed” the Feldmans’ sublet application, that consent to the sublet was granted conditioned upon the execution of the Addendum, and that the Addendum not only required the signatures of Levis and the Feldmans, but also the signature of one of the principals of the entity that owned the building, Park Lane. He also declared that the Feldmans took possession on May 8, 2005, but that he never received notice until late May or early June and that he had warned them on May 18 th that Levis’s tenancy would be terminated and the Feldmans evicted if they took occupancy prior to the full execution of the Addendum. He acknowledged receiving the Addendum executed by Levis and the Feldmans after May 19th, but stated that it had never been signed by a principal of Park Lane.

Other Sections in This Document (227)

Full Text