7
A resident manager whose tenancy is premised upon employment with the landlord (i.e.,
the right of occupancy is part of the employment compensation package) may be evicted upon
termination of her employment. The discharge from employment terminates both the
employer-employee relationship and the tenancy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (1);
Lombardo v. Santa Monica Young Men’s Christian Assn. (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 529, 541
[“‘“[i]f a person occupies premises belonging to his employer as a part of his compensation, he
has no right to continue his occupation of the premises on the termination of his
employment . . .”’ (Eichhorn v. De La Cantera (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 50, 56.)”])
“A person who occupies premises belonging to his employer as part of his compensation
has no right to continue in possession on the termination of his employment. [Citation.] The
discharged person is a tenant at sufferance and is entitled to no notice before an unlawful
detainer action is commenced. [Citation.]” (Karz v. Mecham (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1,
4; cf. Chan v. Antepenko (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d Supp. 21, 24-25 [terminated employee
occupant is a mere “licensee,” not a tenant and is not protected by local eviction controls],
overruled in part by Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171
Cal.App.4th 1004, 1041 [rejecting the position that discharged employees may be dispossessed
without regard to the circumstances surrounding their occupancy and by means of the
landlord’s self-help].) If the employee occupant holds over, the landlord is automatically
entitled to bring an unlawful detainer action premised upon allegations that the employment
expired or was otherwise “lawfully terminated.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (1).)
Standard of Review
If “‘the issue is presented to the court on the basis of undisputed facts and
uncontroverted evidence and only a question of the application of the law to those facts need be
answered,’ appellate review is de novo.” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments,
supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1025.) “‘Whether a contract confers a mere license or instead
creates a tenancy is a question of law.’” (Id. at p. 1040.) “‘“The . . . interpretation of a statute,
is, of course, a question of law” and is therefore subject to our de novo review.’” (L&S
Framing, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 995, 1015.)
However, “‘we must resolve evidentiary conflicts in favor of the prevailing party, and view the