Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu, 10 Cal. App. 5th 502 (2017)

Citation: Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu, 10 Cal. App. 5th 502 (2017)
Parent Document: Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu, 10 Cal. App. 5th 502 (2017)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2017-04-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4380722/danger-panda-llc-v-launiu/ ↗

Full Text

2,329 chars

19
occupancy of the three Govender children who were all minors at the time the lease was
signed. (Id. at p. 509.) Nine years later, the Govender parents decided to move. By that
time, two of the children had left home, but 23-year-old Brian continued living in the
apartment.
After the Govender parents moved out, the landlord served notice that it was
raising Brian‘s rent, which triggered a dispute about whether the increase was authorized
by Civil Code, section 1954.53, subdivision (d)(2) (Civil Code section 1954.53(d)(2)), a
vacancy decontrol provision of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ. Code,
§§ 1950 et seq.; Costa-Hawkins Act), which provides: ―If the original occupant or
occupants who took possession of the dwelling or unit pursuant to the rental agreement
with the owner no longer permanently reside there, an owner may increase the rent by
any amount allowed by this section to a lawful sublessee or assignee who did not reside
at the dwelling or unit prior to January 1, 1996.‖
The Govenders objected that the rent increase was unlawful because, even though
the parents were no longer living in the apartment, Brian ―was an original occupant
entitled to continued rent control.‖ (Mosser Companies, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at
p. 509.) However, the landlord claimed that the statutory phrase ―took possession‖ in
Civil Code section 1954.53(d)(2) was a term of art, which required that the person
claiming original occupancy had to have acquired a legal right of possession by being a
party to the lease agreement. Without this qualification, the landlord argued, a minor
could ―inherit‖ his parent‘s tenancy and thereby acquire ―rights without obligations.‖ (Id.
at p. 515.)
Affirming a judgment precluding the landlord from increasing Brian‘s rent, the
Mosser Companies court concluded that ―[t]he plain meaning of an ‗original occupant . . .
who took possession of the dwelling or unit pursuant to the rental agreement‘ (§ 1954.53,
subd. (d)(2)) is an individual who has resided in the dwelling from the start of the tenancy
with the landlord‘s permission.‖ (233 Cal.App.4th at p. 512.) In reaching this
conclusion, the court rejected the landlord‘s objection that Brian should not be allowed to
― ‗inherit‘ his parent‘s tenancy,‖ finding that Brian had ―his own personal right of

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text