In this published decision, the issue was whether a landlord owed a duty to a tenant if the parties to the lease were the landlord and the tenant's employer. And the employer advises the landlord to terminate the lease.
The tenant had been employed by a company who required that she train away from home. Part of the employment agreement included a provision that the employer would cover the employee's housing during the training period.
And in fact the employer entered into a lease arrangement with a landlord that covered the training period.
That training period was ultimately extended, as was the lease period between employer and landlord. However, during the extension of the lease, the employee suffered a severe work injury and could not continue working.
The employer notified the worker that the employment agreement was terminated and advised the landlord to end the lease and shut off the utilities.
When the employer learned from the landlord that it was unlawful to turn off the utilities, the company instructed the landlord to change the locks on the residence (which was done).
The employee chose to sue the landlord directly and the landlord countered that it owed no duty to the tenant since its lease agreement was with the tenant's employer.
The trial court agreed and summarily determined that plaintiff was not the landlord's tenant.
This opinion reverses that summary judgment and holds that two different Civil Code sections set up a duty directly between landlord and tenant regardless of who is paying the landlord.
"Civil Code, section 1954, limits a landlord's right to enter an occupied residential dwelling. Civil penalties may be imposed for 'a significant and intentional violation' of section 1954, if done 'for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling....'
"Civil Code section 789.3 protects those occupying residential premises from specified actions by the landlord, including changing the locks, which are done with the intent to oust the resident."
The Court reinstated the lawsuit, including potential punitive damages:
"Defendants first argue that they owed plaintiff no legal duty, because she was not their tenant. That argument misses the point. As discussed above, the law imposes a duty on landlords not to disturb an occupant's possession except by legal process.
"...[A] person in peaceful possession of a residential dwelling need not be a 'tenant' to be protected under the relevant statutes. Moreover, defendants have not otherwise established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on either of plaintiff's statutory claims."
The case is Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apts.
To read the full opinion,
→
CLICK HERE.
