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

1,012 chars

In the instant case, Islay argues that since rent is charged in a specified sum for the initial 31-day term, if a tenant vacates the premises after that initial term, no security deposit exists. Neither is there a security deposit if the tenant pays rent on a daily or weekly basis for any subsequent term since the rent will then be higher than the initial term. Islay argues that if its higher rent for the first month is treated as a security when a tenant elects to continue the term for subsequent months, then the tenant is in effect determining whether or not his landlord is in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5. Islay also argues that its unique form of rental agreement is motivated by its desire to induce tenants to hold over their units at a lower monthly rate. It argues that by continuing the tenancy on a monthly basis, the tenant in fact amortizes the higher rental payment for the first month over a period of months, which in effect means the tenant pays less rent the longer the tenancy.

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text