DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)

Citation: DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
Parent Document: DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2000-09-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2251161/dezerega-v-meggs/ ↗

Full Text

1,466 chars

Nor does the evidence convincingly establish that Nnadi-Nwazurumike viewed himself as defendant’s lessor. In his September 30 notice to defendant to vacate the premises he described himself as the “sole lessee,” but indicated that he viewed plaintiffs—not himself—as responsible for future handling of defendant’s security deposit: “You will receive your deposit of $705 back if you clean and repair any damage you may have inadvertently caused while in residence. As of the evening of 9/30/97, you have not paid your share of October 97 rent. I will assume you want the landlord, Sara DeZerega, to deduct your last month (October) rent of $353 from your $705 deposit.” He went on to invite defendant to bring any questions to him “or you can contact Sara DeZerega.” In his letter to plaintiffs of November 17, 1997, he seemed to disclaim any legal obligation to secure possession from defendant, writing, “I had indicated that I would pursue eviction procedures against Jason Meggs, but the amount of energy and time required to do this is too great for me at this time. I appreciate your understanding over the last few months. I also hope that you have better luck dealing with Mr. Meggs.” Again, these are not the words of one who understands himself as a master lessee and sublessor, to whom any holding over by a subtenant is attributed, and to whom the master lessor may look for any resulting damages. These sound more like the words of one who has been told

Other Sections in This Document (100)

Full Text