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

747 chars

One could say that the distinction between a security and rent has something in common with one view of obscenity. Though hard to define, one knows it when he sees it. On closer examination however, security and rent are susceptible of a more concrete definition within the statute. A security is what the statute says it is, but we exclude from that definition legitimate rent. The term “legitimate rent” may appear a tautology, but it is important to distinguish “legitimate” rent from what a landlord calls rent when he wishes to disguise a payment which is really a security. Rent is the consideration paid by the tenant for the use, possession and enjoyment of the demised premises. (Silveira v. Ohm (1949) 33 Cal.2d 272 [201 P.2d 387].) *390

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text