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

816 chars

Plaintiffs contend that defendant was not a “person entitled to the use or occupancy” of the premises because his estate as subtenant was extinguished by the termination of the sublessor’s estate. Assuming this would be true at common law, the Ordinance was manifestly intended to extend its protections beyond common law doctrines to include “renter[s]” and “successors] to a renter’s interest.” It follows that the operative question is not whether the occupant had a common law right to possession when the landlord brought a suit for eviction, but whether the occupant had at some prior time acquired a legitimate right to possession as a “renter,” “successor,” “subtenant,” “sublessee,” or otherwise. If the answer is affirmative, then the ordinance requires the landlord to comply with its eviction procedures.

Other Sections in This Document (100)

Full Text