Nottbohm v. Thompson CA5
F071124
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (tenants at the Modesto Inn in 2012) sued multiple defendants for habitability, nuisance, negligence, breach of warranty/contract and related claims based on building defects, infestations, water damage and mold.
- The Patel defendants operated and managed the Modesto Inn; the Landowner Defendants owned the ground under the Inn and leased it (1960 lease) to Travelodge successor (Jai Jalaram), with lease language making lessee responsible for maintenance and providing that improvements remain lessee’s property during the lease.
- City inspectors issued notices of violation (May and June 2012); the Modesto Board of Building Appeals found code violations and imposed civil penalties against both landowner and Patel defendants.
- Landowner Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting they never owned, possessed, controlled, operated, maintained or contracted with the tenants and thus owed no duty; they produced declarations and the lease to negate possession/control and landlord-tenant status.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Landowner Defendants; plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty under Municipal Code | Modesto code imposes owner liability for property maintenance; Landowners are "owners" and therefore owe duty | Landowners did not own or possess the Inn (lease gave lessee ownership of improvements during lease); municipal owner-only provisions don’t apply to nonowners | Held: Landowners were nonowners/nonpossessory; municipal-code owner provisions inapplicable |
| Tort liability for dangerous conditions | Landowners should be liable despite lease because owner remains responsible or via nondelegable duty | Nonpossessory landlords not liable for tenant-created conditions absent right/ability to control or cure; plaintiffs offered no evidence Landowners had such control | Held: No triable issue — Landowners negated duty by showing lack of possession/control |
| Vicarious liability (independent contractor/agency) | Patel defendants were agents/independent contractors of Landowners, so Landowners liable for their acts/omissions | Lease/decls show typical lessor-lessee relationship; plaintiffs produced no evidence of control sufficient to convert tenant into agent or contractor | Held: Plaintiffs failed to raise a factual dispute that Patel defendants were independent contractors or agents |
| Third-party beneficiary / contract claims | Tenants are third-party beneficiaries of lease maintenance promises, so Landowners liable for breaches | Plaintiffs did not plead third-party beneficiary theory and the lease promises run from lessee (promisor) to lessor (promisee), not to tenants | Held: Third-party beneficiary theory was unpled and would fail on the merits; contract/quasi-contract claims require landlord status which plaintiffs did not establish |
Key Cases Cited
- Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 44 Cal.App.3d 504 (Cal. Ct. App.) (landlord liability limited where no control/possession)
- Preston v. Goldman, 42 Cal.3d 108 (Cal. 1986) (possession and control are central to tort liability for land conditions)
- Mundt v. Nowlin, 44 Cal.App.2d 414 (Cal. Ct. App.) (landlord not liable for tenant’s negligence when no control)
- Leakes v. Shamoun, 187 Cal.App.3d 772 (Cal. Ct. App.) (nonpossessory landlord liability requires right and ability to cure)
- Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal.App.3d 903 (Cal. Ct. App.) (habitability claims depend on duty owed by defendant)
- Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino, 35 Cal.App.4th 1654 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing lessor-lessee from employer-independent contractor relationships)
- Koepnick v. Kashiwa Fudosan America, Inc., 173 Cal.App.4th 32 (Cal. Ct. App.) (nondelegable duty applies to possessor of land)
- Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 83 Cal.App.4th 523 (Cal. Ct. App.) (control is key to agency/principal relationship)
- Comunidad en Accion v. Los Angeles City Council, 219 Cal.App.4th 1116 (Cal. Ct. App.) (plaintiff may not raise new unpleaded issues in opposing summary judgment)
- Souza v. Westlands Water Dist., 135 Cal.App.4th 879 (Cal. Ct. App.) (third-party beneficiary doctrine requires promisor’s promise to third party)