The long moratorium on most evictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the de facto shutdown of the court system for civil matters, caused most California landlords to defer unlawful detainer and related landlord-tenant litigation over the past two-and-a-half years.
Two cases from different appellate districts in California have come to different conclusions about the enforceability of co-tenancy provisions. This article describes co-tenancy provisions, discusses liquidated damages and alternative performance, and then reviews Grand Prospect and JJD in detail to compare the reasoning in each case.
A national “eviction moratorium” issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on September 4, 2020, initially was set to expire December 31, 2020, and subsequently was extended through January 31, 2021, and then to March 31, 2021, and most recently to June 30, 2021.
If an individual contracts COVID-19 after visiting a specific property, and the exposure of the COVID-19 is traced to that specific property, who is liable to the individual?
With the enactment of Assembly Bill 1482, signed by Governor Newsom in October 2019, the California legislature imposed a “just cause” limitation on lease terminations, non-renewals, or evictions for most California residential landlords, and also imposed a cap on the amount of annual rent increases allowable for many of the same landlords.
If a tenant receives a verbal assurance from a landlord while negotiating a lease, and the assurance is not written in the lease, does the tenant have any recourse if the assurance turns out to be false?