Kaufman v. Goldman
195 Cal. App. 4th 734
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant tenant and plaintiff landlord entered a settlement in 2001 after an unlawful detainer, requiring defendant to vacate by March 1, 2008 and waiving rights under the SFRRSAO.
- Defendant agreed to pay past rents, advance rent, and attorney fees; plaintiff would dismiss the UD action with prejudice.
- Plaintiff later reminded defendant of the move-out obligation in 2007; defendant's new counsel challenged enforceability under SFRRSAO and public policy.
- Defendant remained in the apartment past March 1, 2008, paying several rent checks which were largely uncashed; one was deposited by mistake.
- Plaintiff filed suit in 2009 seeking breach of contract, declaratory relief, and specific performance; trial court granted summary adjudication in plaintiff’s favor and possession to plaintiff.
- Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order and judgment granting possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Agreement create a renewed tenancy? | Kaufman | Goldman | No renewal; no triable issue on tenancy renewal |
| Is the Agreement just and reasonable requiring specific performance? | Agreement compensates both sides; seven years below-market occupancy is consideration | No adequate consideration; may be unjust | Just and reasonable; enforceable |
| Is there an adequate legal remedy of damages instead of specific performance? | Damages are inadequate for real property transfer | Damages could suffice | Damages inadequate; specific performance proper |
| Does the move-out provision violate SFRRSAO section 37.9(e) or public policy? | Waiver within a settlement is permissible; limitations of 37.9(e) do not apply to settlements | Waiver void as against public policy under 37.9(e) | Move-out provision lawful; waiver does not violate 37.9(e) |
| Does public policy bar enforcing a settlement that affects tenant rights? | Strong policy in favor of settlements; contract should be enforced | Public policy to protect tenants against unfair waivers | Public policy does not void the settlement; enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoon v. Lewis, 81 Cal.App.4th 108 (Cal. App. 2000) (strict construction of moving papers; de novo review on appeal)
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (standard of review for appellate assessment of evidentiary conflicts)
- Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Syufy Enterprises, 69 Cal.App.4th 321 (Cal. App. 1999) (procedural posture for summary adjudication review)
- Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Richmond Redevelopment Agency, 178 Cal.App.3d 435 (Cal. App. 1986) (possession/tenancy implications of holdover and renewal)
- Chacon v. Lithe, 181 Cal.App.4th 1234 (Cal. App. 2010) (waiver of rights under SFRRSAO in post-litigation context)
- Miller v. Johnston, 270 Cal.App.2d 289 (Cal. App. 1969) (adequacy of consideration in settlement of disputes)
- Nicholson v. Barab, 233 Cal.App.3d 1671 (Cal. App. 1991) (public policy favoring settlement; consideration of bargains)
- Zhou v. Unisource Worldwide, 157 Cal.App.4th 1471 (Cal. App. 2007) (public policy and settlement considerations)
- VL Systems, Inc. v. Unisen, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 708 (Cal. App. 2007) (public policy and contract enforcement considerations)