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

2,042 chars

35
indicates that waivers are permissible as to those deposits”].) The distinction
between the two statutes here show that the Legislature must have had a
specific intention in including the “specific purposes” language in Civil Code
section 1950.7, subdivision (c), and that we therefore should make sure to
give effect to the language when interpreting the statute.
      Even more significantly, the fourth use for a residential security
deposit identified in Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (b) (i.e., to cover
loss of the landlord’s personal property) contains a requirement very similar
to the “specific purposes” requirement in Civil Code section 1950.7,
subdivision (c). Specifically, a residential landlord may use the security
deposit to cover the loss of personal property “if the security deposit is
authorized to be applied thereto by the rental agreement.” (Civ. Code,
§ 1950.5, subd. (b), italics added.) This provision indicates that, in certain
circumstances, the Legislature has determined that a security deposit may be
used by a landlord for a particular purpose only if the parties have agreed on
that use when entering into the rental agreement. In that light, Civil Code
section 1950.7 subdivision (c), is reasonably understood as setting up another
such requirement. We therefore conclude that a security deposit in a
commercial lease may be applied by the landlord to cover defaulted rent,
costs of repair or costs of cleaning only if “made for any or all of those specific
purposes” as stated in the parties’ agreement. (Civ. Code, § 1950.7, subd. (c).)
      Moreover, we note that it is consistent with California public policy
regarding commercial leases for the Legislature to have required that the
parties specify the purpose of the security deposit in their lease agreement,
even though such specification is generally not required in residential leases.
The Legislature has declared that “[i]t is the public policy of the state and
fundamental to the commerce and economic development of the state to

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text