Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: LEASE TERM v. LANDLORD'S HANDWRITTEN ADDENDUM

A lease is a contract, and one party cannot add to or modify the terms of a contract without the consent of the other. Therefore, the first question is whether the handwritten addendum was present at the time your brother signed, or was added later. If it were added later, it has no effect and may be an attempted fraud.

If, on the other hand, the hanwritten addendum was present at the time of signing, it would seem to be valid unless some public policy strips the contracting parties of the power to make such an agreement. There are some tenant rights that a tenant cannot waive, i.e. that a landlord cannot take away in the lease, such as the landlord's liability for his negligence, or limitations on security deposits.

Next, I direct your attention to the following sections of the Civil Code, which can be found on line: 1943, 1944, 1945, 1945.5, 1946 and 1946.1. Taken together, these sections set forth California's law and public policy related to your issue.

In particular, note the sentence in section 1946 reading 'It shall be competent for the parties to provide by an agreement at the time such tenancy is created that a notice of the intention to terminate the same may be given at any time not less than seven days before the termination thereof.'

As I interpret this provision, it is lawful for landlord and tenant to contract for a notice period of 60 days. Therefore, unless the handwritten provision was inserted unilaterally after the signing, I think it is not against public policy and is enforceable.

If I am wrong, I hope another LawGuru attorney will jump in and let us know why.

Re: LEASE TERM v. LANDLORD'S HANDWRITTEN ADDENDUM

From California Landlord-Tenant Practice, 2nd ed., published by California Continuing Education of the Bar, �8.70:

"If the landlord and tenant agree that the tenancy may be terminated only by either party's giving more than 30 days' notice, the notice served will be valid only if it complies with the agreement. _Watkins v. McCartney_ (1922) 57 CA 643, 207 P. 909 (60 days' notice)."