Rizzo v. Collosi
Before: Doran
DORAN, J. On June 1, 1947, the appellant Collosi, owner, of two houses described as 3843 and 3843% Whittier Boulevard, in Los Angeles, leased said property to respondent Rizzo for a three-year term, at a rental of $85 per month. Respondent tenant paid $230 as rental for the first' month and the last two months of said term. There was a memorandum in the form of a rent receipt evidencing the transaction.
The respondent’s complaint seeks a declaration of rights and “a determination that the plaintiff has a good, valid and [825]existing lease for the term of three years”; treble damages for alleged rent overcharge, and attorney fees. It is alleged that plaintiff paid to defendant the sum of $330 over and above the lawful rental for said housing accommodations. The complaint also alleges that “as additional consideration for the leasing,” plaintiff painted the outside and inside of the houses, the reasonable value of labor and materials being $750.
The answer of Domeniek Collosi denies all allegations; an answer by Mary Collosi sets up joint ownership with Domeniek Collosi, and alleges that No. 3843 Whittier Boulevard was decontrolled by the O.P.A. on March 2, 1948. It is further alleged that on March 15, 1948, defendants served a month’s notice to quit on the plaintiffs but that the latter have not vacated said premises. As to No. 3843% Whittier Boulevard, it is alleged that plaintiff does not occupy same and that same had been sublet by plaintiff to one Llewellyn P. Card. Said answer prays that plaintiff be adjudged to have no interest in the premises.
The trial court found, as stated in appellants’ brief, that the property was leased as alleged for three years; the front premises known as 3843 Whittier Boulevard, renting for $55 per month, and the rental for the back premises known as No. 3843%, being $30; that defendant was paid $230 for the first and last two months, and was allowed $25 because 3843% was not completed and ready for occupancy. It is further found that plaintiff painted No. 3843 at a cost of $200; that 3843% was voluntarily painted by plaintiff without obligation.
The court also found that the defendant received $15 over and above the lawful rental for No. 3843, and that the reasonable cost of the painting, namely $200, was in the nature of a bonus, making the total rental overcharge $215. The trial court concluded “That the plaintiff has a valid lease . . . for a term of three years, ’ ’ as alleged, denied treble damages and gave judgment for plaintiff “in the sum of $215.00 as excess rent and bonus charged and collected over and above the legal maximum rent for the premises at 3843 Whittier Boulevard,” together with $75 for attorney fees.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)