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

465 chars
The advice-of-counsel defense aside, Bisno’s reliance on these two issues as dispositive proof that Emmett lacked probable cause is hardly clear cut. As to the first, Costa-Hawkins states that a rent increase is not valid when an occupant who took possession pursuant to the original rental agreement remains in the unit. Jeanette was not named in the lease and it is therefore arguable she was not an occupant who took possession pursuant to the lease. As to *1547