Justia Landlord - Tenant Opinion Summaries

A restaurant operated by PFPCO.’s Noble Pie Parlor leased space in the El Cortez Hotel in Reno, Nevada, which was owned by El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC. After initially peaceful relations, the parties’ relationship deteriorated due to disputes over property maintenance and incidents such as a gas leak and a stolen camera. Tensions escalated when El Cortez locked Noble Pie out, resulting in litigation that ended largely in Noble Pie’s favor, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. Later, Noble Pie permanently closed its restaurant, prompting El Cortez to allege breach of the lease’s agreed-use provision and file a new complaint. Noble Pie moved to dismiss; the district court granted the motion but allowed El Cortez to amend its complaint. After further procedural exchanges, El Cortez filed an amended complaint, and Noble Pie again moved to dismiss.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, presided by Judge Egan K. Walker, reviewed El Cortez’s late opposition to the motion to dismiss and its request for an extension of time. El Cortez’s request, based on “professional courtesy,” was submitted just before the deadline. The district court denied the extension, finding no good cause for the delay and noting El Cortez’s pattern of tardiness in filings. The court treated El Cortez’s failure to timely oppose the motion as an admission under DCR 13(3), granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, denied leave to further amend, and awarded attorney fees to Noble Pie as the prevailing party under the lease.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the extension, granting the motion to dismiss, refusing leave to amend, and awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in any of these rulings and affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation. View "El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC v. PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor" on Justia Law

In 2022, voters in a California city approved an initiative known as Measure H, which amended the city charter to establish rent control, just cause eviction protections, and an independent Rental Housing Board with significant regulatory authority over rental housing, rent increases, and evictions. The measure limited annual rent increases for certain multifamily units, prohibited evictions without just cause, and required the city council to appoint a supermajority of tenants to the Rental Housing Board. It also contained provisions for mandatory landlord-paid relocation assistance in certain circumstances and additional notice requirements prior to eviction for nonpayment of rent.After certification of the election results, a group of landlords and a rental housing trade association challenged the validity of Measure H in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. They alleged the measure constituted an impermissible revision of the city charter under the California Constitution, imposed unconstitutional property qualifications for public office, violated equal protection, and was preempted by various state laws. The superior court rejected most of these claims, holding that Measure H was a lawful charter amendment, did not violate constitutional protections regarding property qualifications or equal protection, and did not conflict with state law except in one respect: it partially severed language in the measure that imposed greater notice requirements than those mandated by state statutes for termination of tenancy.Upon review, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reversed in part. The court held that Measure H was a permissible charter amendment, not an impermissible revision; that restricting certain board seats to tenants with a leasehold interest did not violate the constitutional prohibition on property qualifications for office; and that the tenant-majority requirement did not violate equal protection under rational basis review. However, the court found that the relocation assistance provision for tenants displaced by lawful rent increases was preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, and that the additional notice requirement for evictions due to nonpayment of rent was preempted by the Unlawful Detainer Act. The preempted provisions were declared void, and the matter was remanded for the superior court to enter judgment consistent with these findings. View "California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

The case involves an individual who left his Florida residence in August 2018 to care for his terminally ill brother, a tenant in a New York City Mitchell-Lama apartment. After the brother’s death in March 2020, the petitioner sought succession rights to the apartment, which required him to prove that the apartment was his primary residence for at least one year prior to his brother’s death. The petitioner submitted various documents, including income certifications, power of attorney forms, and certain public assistance records. However, some materials listed his Florida address, and much of his supporting documentation either fell outside the relevant one-year period or was not addressed to the apartment in question.The housing company denied his application, concluding that he failed to establish primary residency during the required time. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) upheld this decision after an administrative appeal, finding the evidence insufficient. The petitioner then challenged the agency’s determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court annulled the agency’s decision and granted succession rights, ruling the denial irrational. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the agency’s denial had a rational basis, especially given the petitioner’s failure to supply certain key documents such as New York State tax returns or proof of exemption.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The Court held that, under the applicable regulations, the agency’s determination that the petitioner failed to prove the apartment was his primary residence for the required period was supported by a rational basis. The Court emphasized that the agency’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the evidence provided by the petitioner did not meet the burden required to establish primary residency for succession rights. The order dismissing the petition was affirmed. View "Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev." on Justia Law

Zakaria Allaf and Stephanie Crosby rented an apartment from Robb Crawford and later from Shoreline Holdings Five, LLC, with the lease requiring a $1,795 security deposit. The tenants experienced a persistent cockroach infestation and, after unsuccessful remediation attempts, agreed with Crawford to terminate the lease early in January 2022. Upon moving out, Allaf and Crosby were assured by Crawford’s agent that the security deposit would be addressed within thirty days, but no response was received. Eventually, Crawford’s attorney informed Crosby that the deposit was being withheld because Crawford did not consider the lease terminated.Allaf and Crosby filed a small claims action in the Maine District Court (Portland), alleging wrongful retention of the security deposit and breach of the implied warranty of habitability. After a trial, the District Court found in their favor, awarding $6,000 in damages (including double damages for the security deposit and damages for breach of habitability), plus attorney fees and costs. Shoreline appealed to the Cumberland County Superior Court, which affirmed the judgment. Shoreline then appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting liability for wrongful retention and arguing that attorney fees should not be awarded in addition to the $6,000 statutory monetary limit for small claims actions.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment. It held that sufficient evidence supported the lower court’s finding that the lease had been terminated by agreement and that Shoreline failed to return the security deposit or provide a written explanation. The Court also held that attorney fees awarded under a fee-shifting statute such as 14 M.R.S. § 6034(2) are considered “costs” and are not included within the $6,000 small claims cap set by 14 M.R.S. § 7482. Thus, the award of attorney fees in addition to $6,000 in damages was proper. Judgment was affirmed. View "Allaf v. Shoreline Holdings Five, LLC" on Justia Law

Several tenants of a subdivided property in Los Angeles, each with separate oral lease agreements for individual units, were forced out of their homes after the landlord obtained a default unlawful detainer judgment against the tenant of a different unit. The landlord did not inform these tenants of the proceedings or provide proper notice. Although only the tenant of unit seven was behind on rent, the landlord sought and obtained possession of the entire property. The sheriff’s deputies, acting on the writ of possession, evicted all the tenants, leaving them homeless and unable to retrieve most of their belongings.The tenants filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asserting claims such as wrongful eviction, breach of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and violations of statutory and local ordinances. The landlord responded by filing a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the tenants’ claims arose from protected petitioning activity—the prosecution of the unlawful detainer action. The Superior Court granted the motion for ten of the eleven causes of action, concluding that the tenants’ claims were premised on the landlord’s protected activity in pursuing the unlawful detainer case.Upon review, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, held that the tenants’ claims did not arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. The appellate court found that the gravamen of the tenants’ complaint was the landlord’s improper termination of their tenancies without judicial process or notice—not the act of filing or prosecuting the unlawful detainer action against another tenant. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and directed the lower court to deny the motion. View "Noon v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Tenants of two units in a multi-family residential building filed rent escrow complaints in the District Court of Maryland in Prince George’s County, alleging hazardous conditions such as infestations, water damage, and fire risks. The property lacked a valid rental license due to housing code violations. The tenants sought repairs and a return of rent paid during the unlicensed period, arguing that, under Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C., they owed no rent while the property was unlicensed and should not have to pay rent into escrow.The District Court ordered the tenants to pay rent into escrow starting September 2023, and dismissed their complaints when they declined to do so. The tenants appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. By the time of the appeal, one tenant had vacated, and the landlord had obtained the necessary license and disclaimed any intent to collect rent from the unlicensed period. The circuit court heard the appeal de novo and dismissed it as moot, noting that the landlord was not seeking rent for the unlicensed period.On further review, the Supreme Court of Maryland concluded that no live controversy remained. The tenants no longer had possession of the units, and the landlord had renounced claims for rent during the unlicensed period. The court rejected arguments that collateral consequences or exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied, finding no judgments of possession or damages had been entered and recent legislative changes had altered the statutory framework. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Maryland dismissed the appeal as moot. View "Wilson v. Tanglewood Venture" on Justia Law

Two young children, ages four and two, suffered severe injuries after falling from a second-floor bedroom window in their apartment, which had recently undergone renovations. The property owner and manager had replaced the window without installing a fall prevention device, despite the window’s low sill height and significant drop to the ground. The children, through their guardian ad litem, sued the owner and manager for negligence, alleging both general negligence and negligence per se based on an alleged violation of the California Building Standards Code, which requires fall prevention devices on certain windows.The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, heard the case. Before trial, the defendants sought summary adjudication and moved in limine to exclude expert testimony regarding the Building Code, arguing that the property was exempt from current requirements due to compliance with the code at the time of original construction and the use of “like-for-like” materials during renovation. The trial court denied these pretrial motions but, after plaintiffs presented their case at trial, granted a nonsuit on both negligence theories, finding no duty under general negligence and that the code exemption applied to the negligence per se claim.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It affirmed the trial court’s ruling on general negligence, holding that the harm was not sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty on the landlord under the circumstances. However, it reversed the nonsuit on negligence per se, holding that the trial court misinterpreted the Building Code: a window is not an “original material” exempt from current safety requirements. The appellate court remanded the case for retrial on the negligence per se claim. View "Jimenez v. Hayes Apartment Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff resided at an apartment complex with his son, who was arrested for aggravated armed robbery by the local police department. After the arrest, the police informed the apartment management, which then evicted both the plaintiff and his son based on a lease provision prohibiting criminal conduct. The plaintiff sought information about his son’s arrest from the city and police department under the Texas Public Information Act, but his request was denied after the city consulted the Texas Attorney General and invoked a law-enforcement exception.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the plaintiff filed suit against the city, the police department, the apartment complex, a debt collection agency, and the Texas Attorney General, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Texas law. All defendants either appeared, filed answers, or moved to dismiss. The plaintiff moved for default judgment against each defendant, but the district court denied those motions and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On appeal, the plaintiff only challenged the denial of default judgment, as he did not brief arguments regarding the dismissals and thus forfeited them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the denial of default judgment for abuse of discretion. The court held that default judgment was not warranted because the city, police department, and debt collector had all appeared or answered, and the Attorney General had not been properly served. The court also found that arguments regarding attorney conflict and judicial bias were either forfeited or unsupported. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of default judgment. View "Clark v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law

In February 2021, a contract for deed was executed between a property owner and a purchaser for two properties in Gladstone, North Dakota. The contract stipulated that the purchaser would receive title upon full and timely performance. The purchaser failed to make the required payments, prompting the owner to serve and publish a notice of cancellation in accordance with North Dakota law, which provided a six-month period to cure the default. The purchaser did not cure the default or file any affidavit asserting counterclaims or defenses during this period. After the cure period expired, the owner recorded a notice of cancellation and subsequently served the purchaser with a three-day notice of eviction when he remained in possession of the properties.The owner initiated separate eviction actions for each property in the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District. The court heard the matters together but did not consolidate them. After a hearing, the district court found that the owner had complied with statutory requirements for cancellation, that the purchaser had failed to cure the default, and that the purchaser was wrongfully retaining possession. The court excluded over 1,100 pages of evidence offered by the purchaser, finding it lacked foundation and was not relevant to the limited scope of an eviction action, which was solely to determine the right to possession. The court ordered the purchaser to vacate the properties.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and its evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that service of process was proper, the exclusion of evidence was within the district court’s discretion, and the eviction was appropriate because the contract for deed had been canceled by operation of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment of eviction. View "Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock" on Justia Law

A commercial landlord and tenant entered into a lease for office space, which was later amended to include a limited personal guaranty by an officer of the tenant. The guaranty, often referred to as a "good guy" guaranty, stated that the guarantor would be liable for the tenant’s monetary obligations under the lease up to the date the tenant and its affiliates had completely vacated and surrendered the premises, provided the landlord was given at least thirty days’ notice. The tenant stopped paying rent and utilities in 2020, notified the landlord of its intent to vacate, and surrendered the premises at the end of November 2020.The landlord sued both the tenant and the guarantor in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid rent and expenses from before and after the surrender, as well as attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the landlord for pre-vacatur damages but denied summary judgment for post-vacatur damages pending further discovery. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment for post-vacatur damages as well, holding both the tenant and guarantor jointly and severally liable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, reasoning that the guaranty required the landlord’s written acceptance of the surrender for the guarantor’s liability to end.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court of Appeals held that, under the terms of the guaranty, the guarantor’s liability ended when the tenant vacated and surrendered the premises, and that liability was not conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of the surrender. The court found that the language of the guaranty was clear and did not require the landlord’s written acceptance, and that interpreting it otherwise would render key provisions superfluous. The court denied the landlord’s motions for summary judgment on post-vacatur damages. View "1995 CAM LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC" on Justia Law