JAD22-06
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 26, 2022Background
- Tenants Markarian and Tarvirdian (with listed occupants Marita Acuna and Polet) held a written lease for a three-bedroom Glendale unit; Polet left ~2014. Since at least 2017, Ronald Acuna (adult) and his minor daughter Chloe resided in the unit without written landlord authorization.
- Landlord Wong increased rent effective August 1, 2019 (disputed reason) but did not offer a concurrent one‑year written lease as required by Glendale Municipal Code chapter 9.30 for rent increases.
- Wong solicited a rental application and ran a credit check on Ronald in late 2019 and internally approved him as a tenant but did not notify tenants or issue a lease; she also conditioned approval on payment of a $100 monthly surcharge in the addendum.
- Wong served a three‑day notice to perform or quit (Feb. 4, 2020) alleging unauthorized occupants and sued for possession; tenants defended under the Glendale Ordinance’s just-cause/retaliatory-eviction provisions and asserted equitable estoppel.
- Trial court found tenants complied with the Ordinance, landlord violated the Ordinance by failing to offer a lease with the rent increase, and landlord unreasonably withheld approval of Ronald; judgment for defendants was entered and appealed by Wong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of §9.30.030(B)(2): whether both an additional adult and a dependent child can be treated as permitted additional occupants | Ordinance’s singular phrasing means only one additional occupant (either adult or child) may be allowed | Ordinance language, context, and purpose permit the child plus the sole additional adult where applicable | Court held the Ordinance allows the sole additional adult (and the dependent child who joined) — singular form construed to include plural given context and purpose |
| Whether landlord reasonably withheld approval of Ronald as an additional tenant | Wong withheld approval legitimately (grounds for disapproval) | Tenants: landlord did not reasonably disapprove; she internally approved but hid that fact and conditioned approval on payment she had no right to demand before consent | Court held landlord unreasonably withheld approval; evidence showed bad faith and failure to apply reasonable tenant‑screening criteria |
| Effect of failing to offer a one‑year lease with a rent increase under the Ordinance | Rent increase invalid but landlord’s claim for possession based on occupancy breach still permitted; she need not offer lease to pursue eviction | Tenants: failure to offer the required one‑year lease provides a complete defense to unlawful detainer and bars eviction remedies | Court held landlord’s failure to offer the concurrent written one‑year lease violated §9.30.025 and §9.30.022 obligations and provided tenants a complete defense under §9.30.050 |
| Motion to dismiss appeal as moot / acceptance of benefits | Wong argued appeal moot and forfeited by later executing a lease with tenants including Ronald | Tenants argued the appeal raises public‑interest recurring issues and Wong did not accept benefits of the judgment | Court denied dismissal: appeal not moot due to recurring public‑interest issue; Wong did not accept benefits of an adverse judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathys v. Turner, 46 Cal.2d 364 (1956) (accepting benefits of a judgment ordinarily waives right to appeal; narrow exception described)
- Schubert v. Reich, 36 Cal.2d 298 (1950) (same principle regarding election to accept benefits v. appeal)
- County of Fresno v. Shelton, 66 Cal.App.4th 996 (1998) (mootness exception for recurring public‑interest issues)
- Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist., 29 Cal.4th 911 (2003) (statutory interpretation: give words plain commonsense meaning and discern legislative intent)
- Ex parte Mathews, 191 Cal. 35 (1923) (singular may include plural where literal reading would produce absurd result)
- Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, 171 Cal.App.4th 741 (2009) (municipal rent‑control ordinances not preempted by state unlawful detainer statutes)
- ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 1257 (2005) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation by appellate courts)
- Cinnamon Square Shopping Center v. Meadowlark Enterprises, 24 Cal.App.4th 1837 (1994) (discussion of mootness and whether to retain appeals for cost issues)
- Paul v. Milk Depots, Inc., 62 Cal.2d 129 (1964) (appellate courts need not retain otherwise moot appeals solely to decide costs)
- Gorham Co., Inc. v. First Financial Ins. Co., 139 Cal.App.4th 1532 (2006) (courts may disregard literal statutory interpretation only in rare cases where legislature could not have intended literal effect)