Orozco v. Casimiro

California Supreme Court Jun 24, 2004 No. BV 024891Published

Before: Lee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A liquidated damages provision in a residential lease is void unless the landlord pleads and proves that it was impracticable or extremely difficult to fix actual damages at the time the contract was made. Because the landlord failed to provide such evidence, the late fee provision was unenforceable.

Issues

Whether a late fee provision in a residential lease is per se void.
Whether a landlord must plead and prove that actual damages were impracticable or extremely difficult to fix to enforce a liquidated damages provision in a residential lease.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of such evidence, he was not entitled to the presumption that the late fee was the amount of damage caused by the late payment. Thus, under the evidence in this case, the late fee was void and unenforceable.”

17 Cal.Rptr.3d 175 (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th Supp. 7 Jose OROZCO, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Olivo CASIMIRO, Defendant and Appellant.

No. BV 024891. Appellate Division, Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

June 24, 2004. [176] Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and Kenyon F. Dobberteen for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Michael J. Meade and Michael J. Meade, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

LEE, P.J.

Proceedings Below

On December 9, 2002, plaintiff and respondent Jose Orozeo filed a complaint in unlawful detainer against defendant and appellant Olivo Casimiro. Respondent alleged that he leased property to appellant at a monthly rent of $550, which was later increased to $601, and appellant was served with a "3-day notice to perform covenants or quit." The three-day notice, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, stated that "YOU HAVE BREACHED the rental agreement ... by: NOT PAYING YOUR LATE FEE WHEN RENT IS NOT PAID BY THE 13TH OF THE MONTH IN THE AMOUNT OF $50.00 PURSUANT TO OUR RENTAL AGREEMENT PARAGRAPH (2). FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER THE RENT WAS NOT PAID UNTIL THE 21ST THEREFOR[E] MAKING YOUR RENT LATE." On December 18, 2002, appellant, in propria persona, filed a general denial which denied the allegations of respondent's complaint and set forth a variety of affirmative defenses, including breach of the warranty of habitability. On December 19, 2002, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles substituted in as counsel for appellant.

The matter proceeded to a court trial on January 30, 2003. The first amended settled statement on appeal reflects that the parties stipulated that all facts alleged in the complaint were true, except that the correct commencement date of the lease was July 10, 1998, not July 10, 1999, as alleged in the complaint. The rental agreement and three-day notice were received into evidence. The lease provided that rent was due on the tenth of the month, as well as providing for a "Late Rent Charge" of "$50.00 3.days.GRACe [sic]." The parties additionally stipulated that neither party "spoke, read or wrote in the English language." At respondent's request, the matter was continued to February 18, 2003, to permit respondent to file a trial brief.

Orozco v. Casimiro

AI Brief

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

LEE, P.J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief