CALIFORNIA STATE:
- Landlord sent existing tenant formal written offer to renew fixed term lease.
- Landlord called tenant and left voice mail indicating that it hoped existing tenant would renew and asked for confirmation of renewal.
- Tenant called landlord back and gave verbal confirmation that renewal offer would be accepted for an additional 1 year lease.
- During the same call, landlord asked how renewal contract should be signed and gave tenant options for in-person or electronic.
- During the same call, tenant accepted electronic signature option for renewal of new fixed term 1 year lease.
- During the same call, landlord indicated it would email link to ESIGN the renewal contract for 1 year.
- Tenant received email containing link to online contract renewal facility established and controlled by landlord.
- Tenant logged into online facility provided by landlord, reviewed contract, accepted terms, electronically signed contract and submitted signed contract with landlord server generated Key Code and IP Address confirming e-signature.
Several weeks later and out of the blue...
- Landlord sends 60 Day Notice to Terminate Lease, with an attached Notice of Non-Renewal for the existing fixed term lease that would not expire for another two months.
- 60 Notice said that underlying 1 year lease would not be renewed and that at the end of 60 days, a month-to-month lease would be in effect, and that said month-to-month lease (which would not come into effect until after 60 days), was also being summarily terminated.
- Tenant moved out under duress of 60 Day Notice and secured another rental for $300.00/mo more than what renewal contract should have been, had previous landlord not reneged (plus moving costs, lost time off from work, etc.)
- Tenant had Multi-year rental history with zero late payments.
Previously, tenant submitted numerous formal written complaints about environmental tobacco smoke entering their unit from adjacent units and the unit directly below. Landlord, never remedied environmental tobacco smoke problem in tenant's apartment and thus, never restored the broken covenant. Last formal written complaint about Marijuana and Cigarette smoke invading tenant's unit, was less than 1.5 months prior to landlord's decision to renege on e-signed renewal.
Landlord was called and asked about their 60 Day Notice. Landlord said to tenant by phone: "Since we did not sign the electronic renewal, there is no contract and we do this all the time. We are not renewing the lease." Landlord was told by tenant that it was in breach of contract, as there was an offer, acceptance and existing/implied consideration. Landlord, reasserted: "We do this all the time. The lease will not be renewed."
Clearly, this landlord is in Breach. My question at this time is, how should the landlord be named as a Defendant? This is a multi-residential property with several hundred units. The owner is an NYSE traded company. The property goes by a different name and has onsite management, who are W2 employees of the owner. There is a regional office nearby that goes by the same name as the owner, not the name of the property where the rental unit exists.
Should the defendant be named using the Owner's identity (corporate name) followed by the marketing name of the Property, followed by the personal name of the onsite Resident Manger? Or, should the defendant be named as just the marketing name of the Property, followed by the personal name of the onsite Resident Manager? Or, some other combination of names and identities?
Documents are gathered, case law has been researched, statutory law has been researched and case is ready to be filed in Small Claims venue for the maximum recovery of $10k in compensatory (expectation and consequential) damages. I am also going to ask the judge for Punitive Damages, given the obvious intent to harm of the landlord, knowing full well that it was forcing constructive eviction (using a 60 Day Notice to terminate a Fixed Term Contract is not legal in California) on the heels of having received a formal written complaint about environmental tobacco smoke that had never been dealt with. This landlord knew it was breaking the law, before it broke the law. It just thought it was going to get away with it - demonstrated by its statement that: "We do this all the time."
Thank you.
- Landlord sent existing tenant formal written offer to renew fixed term lease.
- Landlord called tenant and left voice mail indicating that it hoped existing tenant would renew and asked for confirmation of renewal.
- Tenant called landlord back and gave verbal confirmation that renewal offer would be accepted for an additional 1 year lease.
- During the same call, landlord asked how renewal contract should be signed and gave tenant options for in-person or electronic.
- During the same call, tenant accepted electronic signature option for renewal of new fixed term 1 year lease.
- During the same call, landlord indicated it would email link to ESIGN the renewal contract for 1 year.
- Tenant received email containing link to online contract renewal facility established and controlled by landlord.
- Tenant logged into online facility provided by landlord, reviewed contract, accepted terms, electronically signed contract and submitted signed contract with landlord server generated Key Code and IP Address confirming e-signature.
Several weeks later and out of the blue...
- Landlord sends 60 Day Notice to Terminate Lease, with an attached Notice of Non-Renewal for the existing fixed term lease that would not expire for another two months.
- 60 Notice said that underlying 1 year lease would not be renewed and that at the end of 60 days, a month-to-month lease would be in effect, and that said month-to-month lease (which would not come into effect until after 60 days), was also being summarily terminated.
- Tenant moved out under duress of 60 Day Notice and secured another rental for $300.00/mo more than what renewal contract should have been, had previous landlord not reneged (plus moving costs, lost time off from work, etc.)
- Tenant had Multi-year rental history with zero late payments.
Previously, tenant submitted numerous formal written complaints about environmental tobacco smoke entering their unit from adjacent units and the unit directly below. Landlord, never remedied environmental tobacco smoke problem in tenant's apartment and thus, never restored the broken covenant. Last formal written complaint about Marijuana and Cigarette smoke invading tenant's unit, was less than 1.5 months prior to landlord's decision to renege on e-signed renewal.
Landlord was called and asked about their 60 Day Notice. Landlord said to tenant by phone: "Since we did not sign the electronic renewal, there is no contract and we do this all the time. We are not renewing the lease." Landlord was told by tenant that it was in breach of contract, as there was an offer, acceptance and existing/implied consideration. Landlord, reasserted: "We do this all the time. The lease will not be renewed."
Clearly, this landlord is in Breach. My question at this time is, how should the landlord be named as a Defendant? This is a multi-residential property with several hundred units. The owner is an NYSE traded company. The property goes by a different name and has onsite management, who are W2 employees of the owner. There is a regional office nearby that goes by the same name as the owner, not the name of the property where the rental unit exists.
Should the defendant be named using the Owner's identity (corporate name) followed by the marketing name of the Property, followed by the personal name of the onsite Resident Manger? Or, should the defendant be named as just the marketing name of the Property, followed by the personal name of the onsite Resident Manager? Or, some other combination of names and identities?
Documents are gathered, case law has been researched, statutory law has been researched and case is ready to be filed in Small Claims venue for the maximum recovery of $10k in compensatory (expectation and consequential) damages. I am also going to ask the judge for Punitive Damages, given the obvious intent to harm of the landlord, knowing full well that it was forcing constructive eviction (using a 60 Day Notice to terminate a Fixed Term Contract is not legal in California) on the heels of having received a formal written complaint about environmental tobacco smoke that had never been dealt with. This landlord knew it was breaking the law, before it broke the law. It just thought it was going to get away with it - demonstrated by its statement that: "We do this all the time."
Thank you.
Unlawful Eviction: Constructive Eviction Through Breach of Contract
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire