Granberry v. Islay Investments, 161 Cal. App. 3d 382 (1984)

Citation: Granberry v. Islay Investments, 161 Cal. App. 3d 382 (1984)
Parent Document: Granberry v. Islay Investments, 161 Cal. App. 3d 382 (1984)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1984-10-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2176569/granberry-v-islay-investments/ ↗

Full Text

698 chars

Obviously, “security” cannot mean the same thing as rent. That a landlord chooses to call a payment “rent” however, does not mean that such a payment is in fact rent. Subdivision (c) of the statute specifically states that “[a] landlord may not demand or receive security, however denominated . . . .” Also, under subdivision (c) a landlord may receive in addition to the first month’s rent, a security in an amount equal to two or three months’ rent, depending upon whether the unit is furnished or not. Therefore legitimate rent is not a security within the meaning of the statute, but a security which masquerades as rent solely because the landlord chooses to call it rent, is still a security.

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text