The City v. Hart

California Court of Appeal Nov 26, 1985 No. G002151Published

Before: Wallin, Sonenshine, Crosby

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the presumption of a renewed tenancy under Civil Code section 1945 does not arise when a landlord accepts rent prior to the expiration of a lease, as such acceptance does not constitute implied consent to a holdover.

Issues

Does the acceptance of rent prior to the expiration of a lease trigger the presumption of a renewed tenancy under Civil Code section 1945?
Does a landlord's retention of rent after lease expiration signify consent to a holdover when annual adjustments are pending and the landlord has previously rejected lease extensions?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold the facts before us do not raise the presumption of section 1945 and affirm the judgment.”

“The City accepted rent from Hart before the expiration of the lease term. Contrary to Hart’s argument, this cannot be construed as implied consent to a holding over that had not yet occurred.”

Opinion

WALLIN, J.

Defendant Harry Hart dba Jeweltree appeals a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff The City in an action for unlawful detainer.

[94]

Hart contends the presumption of Civil Code section 1945

applies to defeat a motion for summary judgment where the landlord accepts rent from a tenant prior to the expiration of the lease for a period extending beyond the expiration of the lease. We hold the facts before us do not raise the presumption of section 1945 and affirm the judgment.

Hart operated a jewelry kiosk in The City Shopping Center under a lease which expired on September 14, 1984. The lease required fixed minimum monthly rent payments of $1,400 plus estimated monthly payments towards utilities and common area maintenance and repairs. The lease further provided for monthly payments of percentage rent based on Hart’s gross income. Both the payment for utilities and common areas and the payment for percentage rent were adjusted annually to conform to actual figures for the preceeding lease year.

In June of 1983, Hart and The City resolved a dispute between them over terms of the lease unrelated to the case before us. The resolution included a rejection of Hart’s request for an extension of the lease term and a reconfirmation of the termination date of September 14, 1984.

On September 1, 1984, Hart tendered to The City his usual monthly payment, which was accepted and negotiated. On September 14, a representative of The City notified Hart his lease was terminated. Hart refused to leave, and The City filed an action in unlawful detainer and successfully moved for summary judgment.

Hart contends The City’s acceptance of his normal monthly payment on September 1 was its acceptance of rent for a period extending beyond the termination of the lease, i.e., to September 30. Hart then contends that under Civil Code 1945 the parties are presumed to have created a month to month tenancy on the same terms as the lease and that The City must give him 30 days notice to terminate it. We disagree.

The City v. Hart

AI Brief

WALLIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief