8
evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences, in the light most favorable to [the prevailing
party]. So long as the whole record so viewed reveals in support of the judgment evidence of
ponderable legal significance, i.e., evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value,
we must affirm.’” (Id. at pp. 1015-1016.)
Analysis
Evidence was presented at trial that Rosales signed a resident manager’s agreement on
December 1, 2020, which stated that her occupancy of the premises was at plaintiff’s “sole
discretion”; that her residency was “required for the convenience of [plaintiff]”; that her
employment as resident manager was “at will” and that plaintiff could terminate the agreement
and her employment as resident manager “at any time with or without cause and with or
without advance notice”; and defendant was required to vacate the premises and restore
possession of the unit to plaintiff “free of all other occupants” within 30 days following
termination of defendant’s employment as resident manager or at the end of 30 days following
notice, whichever came first.
While Rosales disputed the authenticity of the signatures on the resident manager’s
agreement, she never disputed that she resided at the premises as the resident manager and
when asked by the court if she was the resident manager, stated that she worked for plaintiff
and the premises was one of her “assigned properties that [she] worked for.” A termination
letter dated August 9, 2023, admitted as evidence at trial stated, “beginning Friday, August 11,
2023, you will no longer be the manager of the [premises]. Your duties terminate at 11:59PM,
August 10, 2023. [¶] As per the agreement signed by you, this is your 30 [sic] notice to move
from your current residence at Unit #106.” The second page of this exhibit was an email from
Rosales dated August 10, 2023, that acknowledged receipt of the termination letter and the
notice, reading, “John and Hilda, [¶] I am in receipt of your wrongful termination letter as of
August 10, 2023, dated August 9, 2023. . . . I consider this retaliation due to reports I have
made against your illegal business practices.”
In contrast to this mountain of evidence substantiating that Rosales was indeed a resident
manager whose occupancy of the premises was contingent upon and only existed as a result of
her employment, there was a complete dearth of evidence that would support any argument that