Borden v. Stiles
92 Cal.App.5th 337
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- Defendant Loretta Stiles occupied a Laguna Woods residence owned by Dan Blechman from about 2011 onward; she paid no rent and said occupancy was in exchange for work she performed for Blechman.
- Blechman died; on April 8, 2020 Alex Borden became administrator of the estate and on December 15, 2020 served Stiles a 30‑day notice to quit that did not state a §1946.2 just‑cause reason.
- Stiles refused to leave; Borden filed unlawful detainer. Both parties moved for summary judgment; they agreed Stiles was a tenant at will.
- Trial court granted Stiles’s motion (finding §1946.2 applies to tenancies at will) and denied Borden’s motion; the Appellate Division affirmed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding triable issues exist about whether Stiles was in “lawful occupation” under §1946.2(i)(3) because evidence suggested her occupancy might have been a hiring that terminated on notice of the owner’s death under §1934.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Borden) | Defendant's Argument (Stiles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1946.2 applies to tenancies at will | §1946.2 should not apply to tenancies at will; trial court erred | §1946.2 protects a tenant at will who has continuously and lawfully occupied for 12 months | Court did not decide the general question; remanded because factual disputes made summary judgment improper |
| Whether Stiles was in “lawful occupation” under §1946.2(i)(3) when notice issued | If tenancy arose from a hiring, §1934 terminated it on notice of owner’s death, so occupancy became unlawful and §1946.2 does not apply | Occupancy was lawful (tenant at will continuously >12 months) and thus protected by §1946.2 | Triable issues of material fact exist (timing of death, notice, and any post‑death agreement); summary judgment improper |
| Whether a tenancy at will can be a "hiring" under §1925 (i.e., reward other than rent) | Tenancies at will cannot involve a hiring and so Chapter 2 protections do not apply | A tenancy at will can be based on a hiring (reward other than rent), e.g., work for occupancy | Court declined to resolve; noted authority suggests tenancy at will may include non‑rent rewards and factual issues control |
| Judicial notice of legislative history of the Tenant Protection Act | Legislative history shows Legislature did not intend to extend protections to life‑estate‑like tenancies | Legislative history irrelevant here | Request for judicial notice denied as irrelevant to disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (addresses burdens and standards on summary judgment)
- Covina Manor, Inc. v. Hatch, 133 Cal.App.2d Supp. 790 (defines tenancy at will and permissive occupancy)
- Daluiso v. Boone, 71 Cal.2d 484 (tenancy at will can be coupled with performance obligations and non‑rent rewards)
- Regents of Univ. of California v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 607 (summary judgment review and consideration of the record)
- ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.5th 175 (de novo review of statutory interpretation and approach to legislative purpose)
- Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal.4th 35 (statutory interpretation principles; consider consequences and public policy)
- Taylor v. Nu Digital Marketing, Inc., 245 Cal.App.4th 283 (overview of unlawful detainer statutory scheme)