Mitchell v. Poole

203 Cal.App.3d 1 (1988) 249 Cal. Rptr. 842 RONALD B. MITCHELL, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERNESTINE POOLE, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 17384. Court of Appeals of California, Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles.

February 25, 1988. [2] COUNSEL

Katz & Block and Roderick T. Field for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

NEWMAN, J.

This cause having been submitted for decision, and fully considered, judgment is ordered as follows:

The judgment is reversed. Appellant to recover costs on appeal.

(1) (See fn. 1.), (2) Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding that respondent had provided appellant adequate notice to quit.[1] He argues that respondent was required to set forth the "good cause" for termination in the notice to quit. We agree.

Civil Code section 1946 provides that a tenancy may be terminated by the landlord if the landlord serves on the tenant a 30-day notice to quit. The notice need not specify the reasons for the termination except for the nonpayment of rent or the expiration of the lease term. Neither of these exceptions [3] applies here. However, an exception to the general rule stated in section 1946 applies when the landlord receives funding from a governmental agency. (See Gallman v. Pierce (1986) 639 F. Supp. 472, 483.) This court in "Appel v. Beyer [(1974) 39 Cal. App.3d Supp. 7 [114 Cal. Rptr. 336]] held that because tenants in a government sponsored subsidized housing project had a `status of entitlement,' a species of property protected by constitutional guarantees of due process of law, those tenants must be given special notices of termination setting forth facts claimed to constitute good cause for eviction." (Highland Plastics, Inc. v. Enders (1980) 109 Cal. App.3d Supp. 1, 13 [167 Cal. Rptr. 353]; see also People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Lucero (1980) 114 Cal. App.3d 166 [170 Cal. Rptr. 554].)