Boshernitsan v. Bach, 61 Cal.App.5th 883

Appellants (Boshernitsan and Vinokur) own a two‑unit San Francisco building and transferred title to the Vinokur and Boshernitsan Living Trust (revocable living trust) with themselves named as trustees, settlors, and beneficiaries.
Appellants served a termination notice seeking to evict respondents (tenants) under San Francisco Rent Ordinance § 37.9(a)(8)(ii) (family move‑in) to house a close relative.
The Rent Board rule 12.14(a) defines “landlord” for § 37.9(a)(8) as a “natural person, or group of natural persons … who in good faith hold a recorded fee interest in the property.”
Tenants demurred, arguing the landlord is the trust (not a natural person) and that the termination notice imposed methods for claiming protected status more onerous than the Rent Ordinance allows; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal held (1) legal title is held by the named trustees (natural persons), not by the trust entity, and (2) trustees who are also settlors and beneficiaries of a revocable living trust qualify as a “landlord” under rule 12.14(a) for the family move‑in provision; the court reversed and remanded.
The court declined to affirm dismissal on the alternative notice‑form argument, finding the notice’s extra procedural detail did not fatally defect the unlawful detainer at this stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Boshernitsan)	Defendant's Argument (Bach)	Held
Whether the entity holding title is a “landlord” under rule 12.14 for family move‑in evictions	Appellants: the trustees (natural persons) hold recorded fee interest and thus qualify as a landlord	Tenants: title is held by the trust (a non‑natural person), so rule 12.14 bars eviction	Held: Trustees who are natural persons and are settlor/trustee/beneficiary of a revocable living trust hold recorded fee interest and qualify as a “landlord” under rule 12.14(a)
Whether the grant deed/complaint allegation means the trust — not the trustees — holds title	Appellants: deed and complaint name the individuals as trustees holding title; trusts do not hold legal title	Tenants: the recorded deed shows the trust as owner; a trust can own property	Held: As matter of law legal title is held by trustees; trusts are fiduciary relationships and do not themselves hold legal title
Whether the termination notice impermissibly imposed more onerous procedures for asserting protected status or relocation claims	Appellants: notice sufficiently informed tenants and identified an agent for submissions	Tenants: notice required submissions to landlord’s counsel by specific means and location, more onerous than Rent Ordinance	Held: Court would not affirm dismissal on this basis; the notice’s procedural specificity did not fatally flaw the unlawful detainer at pleading stage

Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi v. Wilson, 197 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (a trust is not a natural person)
Gonsalves v. Hodgson, 38 Cal.2d 91 (Cal. 1951) (trustee holds legal title while beneficiary holds equitable title)
Moeller v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 1997) (trust described as fiduciary relationship with respect to property)
Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.4th 1298 (Cal. 2010) (discussing settlor’s effective ownership of trust property during lifetime)
Appel, Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner v. Appel, 10 Cal.App.4th 1810 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (homestead protection applied where owner placed title in revocable living trust)
Aulisio v. Bancroft, 230 Cal.App.4th 1516 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (a sole settlor/trustee/beneficiary does not act in a representative capacity for certain purposes)
Cwynar v. City and County of San Francisco, 90 Cal.App.4th 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (owner move‑in remedy can be extinguished for future owners once exercised)
Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center, 6 Cal.5th 474 (Cal. 2018) (unlawful detainer statutes are strictly construed)