Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

1,978 chars

14    Citing Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San
Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888, Aljabban contends we must undertake a
de novo review when determining whether the trial court properly classified
the Items as permanent fixtures. Although not expressly taking issue with
Aljabban’s contention, defendants generally contend that we should apply a
substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court’s findings. We need
not and do not decide whether a de novo standard applies on the issue of
whether the Items were permanent fixtures, as we would reach the same
conclusion under either standard of review.
                                         27
      With respect to the Items being necessary for the use of space H-2 as a
beauty salon, the testimony at trial was unanimous that a beauty salon
requires a water heater and a sink to operate. Indeed, before Carrasco and
Aljabban moved into the space, there were preexisting sinks and a water
heater, installed by Shapiro. That fact suggests that those items were
needed in order to operate the space as a beauty salon. Moreover, the fact
that Shapiro originally purchased the sinks and a water heater and testified
that he would have spent money to replace them if he was told that
replacement was needed, shows that he understood the Items to be
permanent equipment that would continue to remain in place, regardless of
which salon owners occupied the space.
      We accordingly conclude that Items were permanent fixtures within
the meaning of paragraph 4 of the vendor’s permit, and Aljabban and
Carrasco were not entitled to remove them when they vacated the premises.
FISM and Shapiro are therefore not liable for breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or conversion by virtue of having
prevented the removal of the Items from space H-2.
C.    Aljabban’s Challenge to the Trial Court’s Decision That FISM Properly
      Retained $680.00 of the Security Deposit

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text