Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)

Citation: Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)
Parent Document: Foster v. Britton, 242 Cal. App. 4th 920 (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3159177/foster-v-britton/ ↗

Full Text

1,798 chars

19
covenant or obligation of the tenancy. (Rent Ord., § 37.9, subd. (a)(2).) Rather, the Rent
Board has made clear that the obligation not to overcharge a subtenant is one the master
tenant owes to the subtenant, not to the landlord.
D. Trial Court’s Decision Not to Adjudicate the Effect of Rule 12.20 on Evictions
One of the issues Foster raised in her motion for summary judgment was whether
Rule 12.20 barred a landlord from evicting a tenant for violating unilaterally-imposed
house rules. In opposing the motion, Britton argued the issue was not ripe because there
was no eviction action pending. The trial court agreed with Britton: It found the issue
was not ripe because there was no eviction case pending against Foster, and therefore she
was not entitled to summary adjudication of this issue. Foster dismissed the issue
without prejudice.
In a curious twist, Britton now argues the trial court erred in refusing to consider
this ground for Foster’s motion for summary judgment. The contention is untenable.
Even if the trial court erred, Britton waived any error by arguing below that the issue was
not ripe. (City of Scotts Valley v. County of Santa Cruz (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1, 29
[“when a party bears some responsibility for the claimed error, they are generally
estopped from taking a different position on appeal or are deemed to have waived the
error”].) In any case, any error in rejecting plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication
as to this issue was on its face favorable to Britton, and therefore may not be challenged
on appeal. (See Marich v. MGM/UA Telecommunications, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th
415, 431 [appellant may not challenge favorable ruling on appeal].)
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text