Rossetto v. Barross

California Supreme Court Apr 12, 2001 No. AD4609, AD4610Published

Before: Kopp

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the parties' agreements created a valid landlord-tenant relationship between the cotenants, allowing the respondents to maintain an unlawful detainer action against the appellant for failure to pay expenses defined as rent.

Issues

Whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between cotenants under the subject agreements.
Whether the appellant's obligation to pay mortgage, taxes, and association dues constituted 'rent' for purposes of an unlawful detainer action.
Whether the trial court properly denied the motion for a new trial based on evidence not presented at trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is implicitly conceded by the parties that cotenants may contract for one cotenant to occupy premises as a lessee of the other(s).”

“Rent may not necessarily be a single specific dollar amount. It consists even of services.”

“In sum, a single writing (the 1985 Agreement) created both a tenancy in common and a lease between three of the cotenants as lessors (respondents) and the fourth cotenant as lessee (appellant's predecessor in interest).”

110 Cal.Rptr.2d 255 (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 Gary ROSSETTO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

Regina Ann BARROSS, Defendant and Appellant.

Nos. AD4609, AD4610. Appellate Division, Superior Court, San Mateo County.

April 12, 2001. [256] Ernest L. Anderson, Hayward, Attorney for Defendant and Appellant.

Ralph A. Rizzo, Attorney for Plaintiff and Respondent.

KOPP, J.

Gary Rossetto, James T. Walch, Amy K. Walch (hereinafter respondents), and Oscar Bazan entered into a "Memorandum of Agreement Between Tenants In Common" (hereinafter 1985 Agreement) on November 11, 1985, respecting the purchase on [257] that date of property at 2411 Carlmont Drive in Belmont, California as tenants in common. The term of the agreement was three years, subject to sooner termination or renewal by consent of all parties. The purpose was "to set forth the respective rights, duties and obligations of the Parties concerning the operation and management of the Property for their mutual benefit and to do all things related to, incidental to, or in furtherance thereof."

Paragraph 2.02 of the 1985 Agreement stated that so long as the property was "occupied" by Bazan, he would "timely pay all obligations on the first note and deed of trust, association fees, insurance and maintenance," and that if Bazan did not occupy the property, he would still be responsible for such obligations. Paragraph 2.02 further declared that the "monthly profit or loss from the rental of said Property" (italics added) would be Bazan's "exclusively." Paragraph 4.01 required unanimous consent of each party to sublease all or part of the property to any person not a party to the agreement. In paragraph 7.02, each party waived the right to a judicial partition of the property.

No written renewal or termination of the 1985 Agreement occurred. On or about October 7, 1993, Bazan transferred by a "Supplemental Agreement" his interest in the property to Regina Ann Barross (hereinafter appellant). She agreed to assume all "payments on debt service, association fees, insurance, and maintenance" as specified in paragraph 2.02 of the 1985 Agreement. (Failure by appellant to make such payments "without good cause" would result in forfeiture of her entire interest to Bazan and refund by Bazan of appellant's $20,000 purchase deposit.)

Rossetto v. Barross

AI Brief

KOPP, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief