Chan v. Antepenko

California Court of Appeal Jun 13, 1988 No. 4344Published

Before: Stein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an employee who occupies an apartment as a condition of employment is a licensee rather than a tenant, and therefore is not entitled to the protections of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance upon termination of employment.

Issues

Does the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance apply to an employee holding over after the termination of their employment?
Is a discharged employee who occupies an employer's premises as part of their compensation a tenant at sufferance entitled to rent ordinance protections?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The first issue presented on appeal is whether the Rent Ordinance applies to an employee holding over after termination of his employment. We find that it does not and reverse the judgment.”

“Discharged employees are not tenants. Their presence on the premises is not a possession or an occupancy, for these are retained by the owner; they are like guests or lodgers who, when their rights to remain has ceased, may be removed without notice.”

“As a licensee Mr. Antepenko is not entitled to the protection of the Rent Ordinance.”

203 Cal.App.3d 21 (1988) 250 Cal. Rptr. 851 BIANNE CHAN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

GREGORY ANTEPENKO, Defendant and Respondent.

Docket No. 4344. Court of Appeals of California, Appellate Department, Superior Court, San Francisco.

June 13, 1988. [22] COUNSEL

Steven H. Rosenthal for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Marc S. Janowitz for Defendant and Respondent.

[Opinion certified for partial publication.[*]]

OPINION

STEIN, P.J.

The plaintiffs, Bianne and Shu W. Chan (hereinafter Owners), commenced an unlawful detainer action against defendant, Gregory [23] Antepenko, seeking to recover possession of an apartment in their building and damages in the amount of its reasonable rental value. Mr. Antepenko moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Owners had not complied with the notice requirements of San Francisco Administrative Code, chapter 37, the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance[1] (hereinafter Rent Ordinance). At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment the Owners made a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The municipal court denied the Owners' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Mr. Antepenko's motion for summary judgment holding that, as a discharged employee, he was a tenant at sufferance within the meaning of section 37.2(r) of the Rent Ordinance and entitled to the prescribed notice.

(1a) The first issue presented on appeal is whether the Rent Ordinance applies to an employee holding over after termination of his employment. We find that it does not and reverse the judgment.

Gregory Antepenko was hired as an assistant manager of the Owners' 48-unit San Francisco apartment building on October 11, 1985. Under his contract of employment he was entitled to occupy an apartment in the building. The contract states: "I acknowledge that I am not a tenant, but am solely an employee dischargeable at any time and that my occupancy of such apt. is merely incidental with [sic] said employment and it also may be terminated at any time.... [¶] That upon termination of my employment by the owner, for any reason, I will vacate the apt. furnished me within three days."

Chan v. Antepenko

AI Brief

OPINION

STEIN, P.J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief