Taylor v. Nu Digital Marketing, Inc.
245 Cal. App. 4th 283
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In August 2012, plaintiffs and Nu Digital executed a contract titled ‘Contract of Sale Residential Property’ to sell Auburn property for $1,250,000.
- The agreement included a 60-month term with probationary installments and a down payment schedule not directly credited to the purchase price.
- Possession was to occur when the buyer met conditions including payment of probationary installments and delivery of certain documents.
- The probationary payments were described as rent-like but not credited toward the purchase price.
- Plaintiffs served a five-day notice to quit for default on probationary payments after which tenants remained in possession.
- The trial court held the agreement created a lease and awarded possession and damages; defendant appealed arguing it was a contract of sale and not subject to unlawful detainer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the agreement create a landlord-tenant relationship or a buyer-seller contract? | Taylor | Nu Digital | Lease construct upheld; possession via lease means unlawful detainer applicable. |
| Is the complaint sufficient to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer? | Taylor | Nu Digital | Complaint sufficient; leases and remedies present support UD claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Municipal Court, 51 Cal.App.3d 446 (Cal. App. 1975) (contractual buyer-seller rights vs. landlord-tenant relationship remains decisive)
- Provouskivitz v. Snow, 74 Cal.App.3d 554 (Cal. App. 1977) (possession through landlord-tenant relationship can support UD despite contract of sale)
- Francis v. West Virginia Oil Co., 174 Cal. 168 (Cal. 1917) (buyer under contract of sale may not use UD to regain possession)
- Goetze v. Hanks, 261 Cal.App.2d 615 (Cal. App. 1968) (confirms limits on UD where contract of sale governs possession)
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co., 62 Cal.2d 861 (Cal. 1965) (extrinsic evidence allowed to interpret agreements in UD context)
- Bristow v. Morelli, 270 Cal.App.2d 894 (Cal. App. 1969) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in UD appeals)
- Larson v. City and County of San Francisco, 192 Cal.App.4th 1263 (Cal. App. 2011) ( UD framework and expeditious remedy principles)