Baca v. Kuang, A171071

Kuang leased premises from Baca Properties under a commercial lease in Fremont, CA, and became a month-to-month tenant after several amendments.
Baca served Kuang a 30-day notice to terminate his tenancy ending January 31, 2023; Kuang was not in breach or owing rent at that time.
After the notice expired, Kuang continued to pay rent (and common area charges) each month, and Baca accepted and retained these payments without refund or qualification.
Baca filed an unlawful detainer action after first accepting post-termination rent, and continued invoicing Kuang for rent for several months.
The trial court ruled for Baca, finding that accepting rent did not amount to consent for Kuang’s continued possession, based on the lease’s no-waiver provision and the landlord’s subjective intent.
On appeal, Kuang argued that Baca’s acceptance of post-termination rent created a month-to-month tenancy by operation of Civil Code section 1945, and that Baca’s actions constituted consent to renewal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does acceptance of rent post-termination create tenancy?	Acceptance of rent was not consent to continue tenancy; no renewal.	Acceptance of rent triggers Civil Code § 1945 presumption of renewal.	Acceptance of rent creates presumption of renewed, month-to-month tenancy.
Does 30-day notice and subsequent eviction avoid §1945?	Issuance of 30-day notice and filing unlawful detainer defeat presumption.	§1945 applies even post-notice; presumption not rebutted here.	30-day notice alone doesn’t defeat § 1945 if rent is accepted after notice.
Effect of lease's no-waiver and survival provisions	No-waiver provision precludes consent; paragraph 42.3 justifies retention.	No breach existed; survival clause inapplicable; rent was accepted as rent.	No-waiver clause not triggered; survival clause did not justify retention.
Effect of subjective landlord intent or error	Landlord’s lack of intent to renew should control.	Objective conduct (not subjective intent) controls under § 1945 and lease.	Subjective intent is irrelevant; objective actions govern under the law.

Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of Oakland, 72 Cal.App.3d 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (Section 1945 presumption applies after landlord accepts rent post-termination, even after 30-day notice)
City of Los Angeles v. Hart, 175 Cal.App.3d 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (Section 1945 does not apply when rent acceptance is before expiration)
Kaufman v. Goldman, 195 Cal.App.4th 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (No renewal when landlord returns rent and does not intend acceptance)
Woodman Partners v. Sofa U Love, 94 Cal.App.4th 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (No-waiver lease clause was enforceable where tenant breached for failure to pay rent)