Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Citation
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Parent Document
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1985-03-15
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
- Little v. Sanchez, 166 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1985)
Full Text
715 charsAs can be seen on the face of these remarkable instruments, respondent’s defendant-tenants purported to agree that respondent was entitled to immediate possession of their homes and to the aid of the court in executing that right. In fact in most instances this execution was to be “stayed” only after the tenants, in essence, had made full payment of all their arrearages. More importantly, this stay was thereafter to remain contingent upon the tenants paying to respondent “on the 1st of each and every month [an amount that often far exceeded their scheduled rent] as consideration for the stay herein so long as defendant(s) remain in possession of said premises, no new tenancy being created by said payment.”