Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 21–40 of 497 results

§ 1805

Action Apartment Ass'n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (2002) California state

But, as provided by regulation, a “general adjustment does not apply to a security deposit.” (Rent Bd. Regs., reg. No. 14002(c).) Given that a general adjustment cannot be used to change the amount of a security deposit, it would...

Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 1054 (1989)

Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 1054 (1989) California state

We note in passing Korens stated in her declaration opposing summary judgment that, quite apart from the matter of interest on the security deposit, the security deposit itself had not been returned to her. However, each cause of action of...

§ 17200

Peviani v. Arbors at California Oaks Property Owner (2021) California state

deposit of $625. Defendants retained all of the security deposit and charged

§ 1805

Action Apartment Ass'n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (2002) California state

The maximum amount of a security deposit is determined by the amount of the first rent payment; the deposit cannot exceed two months’ rent for an unfurnished unit or three months’ rent for a furnished unit. (Civ. Code, § 1950.5...

Federated Mortgage Investors v. American Savings & Loan Association, 47 Cal. App. 3d 917 (1975)

Federated Mortgage Investors v. American Savings & Loan Association, 47 Cal. App. 3d 917 (1975) California state

...Federated agreed in a contract with Central Towers to deliver the “security rent deposits.” Central Towers apparently would not agree to reduce its contractual rights under its contractual arrangements with Federated, that the security deposits be deposited in escrow. If...

Section 31

250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005) California state

We read this last statement, as does Sherwood, to mean that a landlord that in good faith violates the security deposit statute may offset against its damages only those amounts which it properly could have claimed of the security deposit...

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988) California state

...Sess.) comments that the bill "amends the existing security deposit law so that it applies to payments or deposits made to secure execution of the lease as well as deposits made to secure performance. [¶] A deposit made to secure performance...

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988) California state

...Sess.) comments that the bill “amends the existing security deposit law so that it applies to payments or deposits made to secure execution of the lease as well as deposits made to secure performance. [¶] A deposit made to secure performance...

Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006) California state

to the landlord in being able to hold the security deposit. As the trial court found: “By holding [the tenant’s security deposit], the landlord secures certain obligations of the tenant, thereby avoiding potential costs of collection should such obligations...

Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 1054 (1989)

Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp., 212 Cal. App. 3d 1054 (1989) California state

We disagree, because we do not believe that we can properly create by implication a law requiring the payment of interest on security deposits when the Legislature has declined to do so. (See Comment, Interest On Security Deposits—Benefit or...

Section 31

250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005) California state

250 and PhotoPoint intended for the security deposit to be available for application against future rent under the lease if PhotoPoint defaulted. However, the evidence was unnecessary for that purpose because, as we have acknowledged, that intention was reasonably apparent...

§ 17200

Peviani v. Arbors at California Oaks Property Owner (2021) California state

Code section 1950.5 are: (1) the plaintiff paid a security deposit; (2) the security

Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006) California state

The Ordinance did not require landlords to hold the security deposits in any particular type of account. To the contrary, section 49.2, subdivision (d) of the San Francisco Administrative Code stated: “ ‘Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude a landlord...

Section 1950

Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995) California state

During the three-year period relevant to this litigation, plaintiffs vacated apartments rented from defendants but did not receive a written accounting of the basis for, or the amount of, the security deposits retained or the disposition of these security...

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988)

People Ex Rel. Smith v. Parkmerced Co., 198 Cal. App. 3d 683 (1988) California state

function of which is to secure the performance of a rental agreement. . . other than a payment or deposit . . . made to secure the execution of a rental agreement . . . .” The legislative history of the current section 1950.5 indicates that the reason...

section 6

250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005) California state

Security deposits in commercial leases are governed by section 1950.7. As of the date of the judgment herein, section 1950.7, subdivision (c) provided that a security deposit could be applied “to remedy tenant defaults in the payment of...

section 6

250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005) California state

(2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 136-137 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 999 P.2d 718], with respect to the statute governing security deposits for residential leases, section 1950.5 “restricts the use [of a security deposit] to specifically defined...

§ 1805

Action Apartment Ass'n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (2002) California state

In addition, the law applicable to rents is fundamentally different from the law governing security deposits, largely because rent is the property of the landlord, and a security deposit is the property of the tenant. (See pts. II.A., II...

Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995)

Granberry v. Islay Investments, 889 P.2d 970 (1995) California state

During the three-year period relevant to this litigation, plaintiffs vacated apartments rented from defendants but did not receive a written accounting of the basis for, or the amount of, the security deposits retained or the disposition of these security...