Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)

Citation
Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Parent Document
Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2009-06-19

Other Sections in This Document (132)

Full Text

700 chars
Although Emmett sought to increase Bisno’s rent to the fair market rate of $4,295, paragraph 12 of his lease contained a provision limiting a rent increase to $2,000 in the case of a lawful assignment or sublease. Both Sherwood and Mordoh overlooked that provision when reviewing Bisno’s lease and instead advised Emmett that it had a valid claim for the larger rent increase. Because Hotch and Boge were generally aware that such provisions existed in the leases of tenants at The Shores, Bisno contends this was a fact they were obligated to point out to their lawyers. Their failure to do so, he contends, did not fulfill their duty of full disclosure as required by the advice-of-counsel defense.