Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)

Citation: Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Parent Document: Oviedo v. Windsor Twelve Properties, LLC, 212 Cal. App. 4th 97 (2012)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2012-11-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5811531/oviedo-v-windsor-twelve-properties-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,045 chars

*115Appellant does not dispute that respondents were represented by counsel in the unlawful detainer action; instead she asserts that respondents acted in bad faith in bringing the unlawful detainer action. As noted previously, the record contains at least some evidence that Myers may have bom appellant some ill will and wished to evict her. In his declaration, he admitted that when he met with his attorneys he wanted to evict appellant because of her late payments of rent, noise from her unit and her daughter’s being left unsupervised but that he did not want to involve other tenants. Once Gaucin explained that Windsor could raise appellant’s rent to a rate substantially higher than the current rent if appellant had not resided in the apartment prior to January 1, 1996, Myers asserted, apparently without investigation, that he wished to proceed with that route based on his allegedly being told by Karaoglanian that appellant moved into the apartment in 1997. Nowhere in his declaration does Myers assert that he confirmed his understanding of appellant’s move-in date with Karaoglanian during the five-month period between the notice of rent increase and the date of trial in the unlawful detainer action. At no time did Myers or his counsel seek to obtain a declaration from Karaoglanian prior to the latter’s death. Myers admitted that neither he nor Windsor had any lease establishing when appellant moved into the apartment. But despite not having any solid information supporting his decision, Myers moved forward with raising appellant’s rent by 44 percent, expecting that she would not pay it, allowing him to evict her. Myers’s attorney even admitted in open court that Myers raised appellant’s rent with the intent to sue and evict her, which is inconsistent with a good faith attempt to raise her rent to market rates. This evidence is sufficient to meet the minimal requirements of establishing that respondents lacked probable cause in initiating the unlawful detainer action. As a result, appellant has met her burden.

Other Sections in This Document (59)

Full Text