Munoz v. MacMillan
195 Cal. App. 4th 648
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Landlord MacMillan sued Munoz for unlawful detainer; judgment for MacMillan and writ of possession issued.
- Sheriff forcibly evicted Munoz in January 2007 following the judgment.
- On appeal (2008) the unlawful detainer judgment was reversed; final underlying judgment in Munoz’s favor did not address possession or monetary restitution.
- Munoz then sued MacMillan for breach of written contract in a separate action (May 6, 2009) alleging eviction breached the lease.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for MacMillan, relying on Glass v. Najafi to bar contract damages based on lawful eviction uses of judicial processes.
- Court reverses, allowing a breach of contract claim to proceed and addressing restitution versus contract damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May tenant sue for breach of contract for eviction following a detainer judgment later reversed? | Munoz should recover for contract damages. | Glass bars contract damages when eviction followed a valid judicial process. | Triable issue; contract claim may proceed. |
| Does restitution preclude contract damages in this context? | Restitution is available if the reversed judgment caused losses. | Restitution may preclude contract damages. | Restitution does not preempt contract damages; both remedies may be viable. |
| Should Glass and Bedi control whether a contract action lies when eviction occurred under a valid writ later deemed erroneous? | Glass/Bedi do not clearly foreclose a contract claim. | Glass/Bedi support dismissal of such contract claims. | Glass/Bedi do not expressly bar contract claim; genuine issues of fact remain. |
| Is there a triable issue of fact as to whether MacMillan breached the lease by enforcing the initial judgment and evicting Munoz? | Yes, eviction prior to lease expiration constitutes breach. | Eviction was lawful under a valid writ; no contract breach. | Yes, triable issue of fact exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glass v. Najafi, 78 Cal.App.4th 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (landlord acted under court order; later reversal did not convert into tort liability; but issue framed for potential breach/other claims)
- Bedi v. McMullan, 160 Cal.App.3d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (landlord liable for forceful self-help if eviction under void judgment; distinction from orderly judicial process)
- Black v. Knight, 176 Cal. 722 (Cal. 1917) (landlord may withhold execution; eviction under judgment may lead to restitution issues upon reversal)
- Ward v. Sherman, 155 Cal. 287 (Cal. 1909) (restoration/remedies after reversal may be monetary; restitution discussions)
- Chelios v. Kaye, 219 Cal.App.3d 75 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (contract rights and merger principles; damages under contract principles)
- Guntert v. City of Stockton, 55 Cal.App.3d 131 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976) (quiet enjoyment; breach of covenants; not merely malice-based evictions)
- Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments, 171 Cal.App.4th 1004 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (recognizes tort vs contract theories for wrongful eviction and damages)