Hawthorne Investment, LLC v. Lam CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Apr 14, 2021 No. B303786Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for unlawful detainer, holding that the implied warranty of habitability does not apply to commercial tenancies and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or damage calculations.

Issues

Whether the common law implied warranty of habitability extends to commercial tenancies.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting evidence of property damage to the issue of damages rather than as a defense to possession.
Whether the trial court's reduction of rent and damages constituted a recognition of a habitability defense.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“California appellate courts consistently have refused to recognize a habitability defense to commercial property unlawful detainers.”

“Any leak or uninhabitable conditions in December did not excuse Lam’s earlier failure to pay rent.”

“The $2,000 deduction from past due rent, whether right or wrong, did not open a door to Lam’s proposed habitability defense.”

Filed 4/14/21 Hawthorne Investment, LLC v. Lam CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

HAWTHORNE INVESTMENT, B303786 LLC, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19TRCV00994)

QUAN THIET LAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deirdre Hill, Judge. Affirmed.

Quadros & Cuellar, Sarah Cuellar and Micheli Quadros for Defendant and Appellant.

William C. Robison, APC, and William C. Robison for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Hawthorne Investment, LLC sought to evict Quan Thiet Lam after Lam failed to pay rent under a commercial lease. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded Hawthorne possession of the premises, damages, and other relief. Lam claims the court improperly disallowed his contract defense as well as his defense based on the common law implied warranty of habitability. Alternatively, he urges us to take a precedent-setting step by extending this warranty beyond residential tenants to commercial tenants like him. We affirm. Statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure. I In 2015, Lam entered into a five-year commercial property lease. The agreement is a form contract from the California Association of Realtors entitled “Commercial Lease Agreement” with blanks filled in and some interlineations. One interlineation divided maintenance obligations between landlord and tenant. Lam’s monthly rent was $7,000. On October 4, 2019, Hawthorne served Lam with a “3 Business Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.” The notice stated Lam owed rent from July 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019, “amounting to a good faith estimate in the sum of $25,625.00.” The notice demanded that Lam pay the past due rent or leave the premises. It warned failure to pay would result in lease forfeiture and a lawsuit. Lam did not leave or pay rent. On November 6, 2019, Hawthorne sued Lam for unlawful detainer. Hawthorne sought possession of the property, past due rent, attorney fees, costs, and forfeiture of the lease agreement.

Hawthorne Investment, LLC v. Lam CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

QUAN THIET LAM,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WILEY, J.

BIGELOW, P. J.

STRATTON, J.

AI Brief