Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 1954

Citation
§ 1954
Parent Document
DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2000-09-14

Other Sections in This Document (100)

Full Text

872 chars
Our opinion directly reflects the manner in which the case was presented to us. We emphasize again that plaintiffs’ key contention—that defendant was a “subtenant”—is contradicted by the express language of plaintiffs’ own lease. Plaintiffs took themselves outside the black-letter common law—or at least, outside the doctrines they have invoked here—by explicitly authorizing defendant’s occupancy while flatly prohibiting subleasing. In any event it needs no citation or extended discussion to establish that common law doctrines must yield to positive legislative enactments not shown to possess any constitutional infirmity. Finally, the statute we are accused of failing to consider (Civ. Code, § 1954.53, subd. (d)) scarcely warrants extended discussion because, by its plain terms, it operates only to disclaim any new diminution in a landlord’s preexisting rights.