Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in California

My question is a bit complicated, so please bear with me. I address the most important objections that may be interposed, so that we can get directly to the heart of the matter. This question reflects a real-life situation. It is not a law exam question or the like.

I live in a California city with rent control and eviction control. The eviction control ordinance provides for mandatory treble damages, and therefore has a 1 year statute of limitations (SoL).

(On Date 0) I was wrongfully evicted from my rent- and eviction-controlled apartment by my landlord, who lacked cause to do so under the ordinance. The landlord did not recover possession of the apartment because my roommate continued in possession.

(On date (0 + 1 year)) the roommate was lawfully evicted by UD by the landlord, who then recovered possession. I was not notified of the suit or named in it.

(On date (0 + 1.5 years)) the SoL has passed under the ordinance, but not state law, to sue for the wrongful eviction (and the reason I didn't timely do so isn't relevant to this question). That said, the ordinance also prohibits recovery of possession or attempted recovery of possession without cause. These acts fall inside the SoL under the theory of continuous accrual. By this theory, the statute of limitations may expire on earlier wrongdoing in a series of wrongs, but the wrongdoer is not thus immunized for later acts that accrue. Tenant liability for rent has been upheld under this theory in such cases.

Note that Menefee v. Ostawari is not authority, primarily because it does not discuss this theory of the application of the SoL. Secondly, the facts *may* be distinguishable, in that the latter act in Menefee, relinquishment of possession, was *possibly* undertaken by the tenant voluntarily, so that the earlier act was the only cause of action that accrued. [The opinion, unfortunately, doesn�t provide enough facts to be sure of my second reason.]

The other sticky legal bit here is whether the landlord's recovery of possession can be considered to have been *against me* under the ordinance. A long line of cases has held cotenants responsible for rent though they lacked actual possession, under the principle of �constructive possession� through a cotenant, so long as they had not relinquished possession by notice to the landlord. A common refrain in those cases has been "the possession of one is possession for all." I reason that if a cotenant can owe rent by constructive possession, then surely a cotenant can be in possession by constructive possession.

[This is a good test of whether the law is simply another tool for the exercise of power by elites, or whether it is there so the rich don�t always win.]

My question is, if you disagree with the above, what law (with citation to precedent, please) supports your answer, or, if you agree, how may I contact you for official, remunerated support as counsel, co-counsel or second opinion when I prep for negotiation/trial/appeal?

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in California

Looking for something else?