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

1,022 chars
Bisno also contends Emmett failed to ask Mordoh for legal advice about the applicability of two other Costa-Hawkins provisions. The first concerned the testimony of Boge and Hotch at the rent control hearing that they believed Jeanette was a lawful occupant of Bisno’s unit. Based on that belief, Bisno contends Mordoh should have been asked to advise whether a CostaHawkins rent increase was permitted under section 1954.53, subdivision (d)(3), which states that an increase is not permitted where one occupant moves out, but another occupant remains. The second concerned Emmett’s acceptance of rent from Bisno after learning Jeanette intended to occupy the unit as her primary residence. Based on that, Bisno contends Mordoh should have been asked whether the rent increase was permitted under section 1954.53, subdivision (d), which states that no waiver of a prohibition against subletting occurs unless a landlord accepts rent from a party to the lease after receiving written notice of the sublease from that party.