Court Opinion

ID: 9370838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 19:02:45.33246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.057548
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/20/22

                            APPELLATE DIVISION
                    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
                            COUNTY OF ORANGE

 FRANK ATTENELLO,                            30-2021-01217998

     Plaintiff and Appellant,                (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-
                                             01209364)
         v.
                                             OPINION
 SAM BASILIOUS et al.,

     Defendants and Respondents.

       Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Central
Justice Center, Carmen Luege, Judge. Affirmed.
       Steven D. Silverstein and Demi Connell for Plaintiff and Appellant.
       Community Legal Aid SoCal, Katelyn Rowe, Terra Laughton, Jonathan
Gibson, and Sarah Reisman for Defendants and Respondents.
       Western Center on Law & Poverty, Richard Rothschild, Lorraine
Lopez, and Olivia Williams as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and
Respondents.
                                 *      *     *
       Plaintiff Frank Attenello contends the trial court erred in sustaining
defendants Sam Basilious and Susanna Basilious’s demurrer without leave to
amend. He contends the trial court erred in finding that a signed agreement
is insufficient to establish “just cause” to terminate the tenancy under the
Tenant Protection Act of 2019. We disagree and affirm.
                               BACKGROUND

      On July 8, 2021, plaintiffs Frank Attenello and Janet Attenello filed an
unlawful detainer complaint for possession of residential real property
located in Huntington Beach against defendants. The complaint states that
defendants signed the “Coronavirus Rent Forgiveness, Termination of
Tenancy and Possession of Premises Agreement” (Agreement) on March 9,
2021. A copy of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2. Pursuant to its
terms, defendants agreed to vacate the premises by June 30, 2021.
Defendants have failed to vacate as agreed.
                    A Partial Description of the Agreement
      The Agreement bears the logo of California Association of Realtors
(CAR) on the top left corner, and the form is copyrighted and approved by
CAR. Plaintiffs’ first names and “Rangers Property Management” are
printed in the footer box.
      The Agreement states that it “is an addendum” to the lease or rental
agreement.
      It also states, “Tenant has failed to pay Landlord the full amount of
rent due for all or part of time beginning on March 1, 2020 and ending on
June 30, 2021.” Further, the form states, “Tenant has remained in
possession of the Premises during the period of unpaid rent.”
      Under the heading LANDLORD RIGHTS REGARDING UNPAID
RENT AND POSSESSION OF PREMISES, the form states, “Tenant is liable
for unpaid rent. If Landlord has served Tenant with an eviction action based
on unpaid rent, if more than 15 business days have passed and Tenant has
not delivered to Landlord a Declaration of COVID-19 Financial Distress
(C.A.R. Form DCFD), Landlord may lawfully evict Tenant for unpaid rent.”

                                       2
      Under the heading MUTUAL INTENT TO AVOID LEGAL ACTION,
the form states, “In order to avoid the potential expense and uncertainty of
legal action, the potential negative impact that accompanies a monetary
judgment awarded by the court, or that is associated with a judgment for
possession issued by a court, and to ease the burden of relocation by allowing
Tenant to use saved resources toward other housing rather than paying back
rent, the Parties agree as below. . . .”
      Under the heading TENANT, AND ALL OCCUPANTS AGREE, the
form states, “The Lease[,] whether in writing, verbal, or oral shall be
terminated on 06/03/2021 (Move-out Date); . . . [tenants agree] [t]o vacate the
Premises and return possession to Landlord on the Move-out Date. . . .”
      Under the heading PROVIDED TENANT AND OCCUPANTS
SATISFY THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED [ABOVE], LANDLORD AGREES
“[t]o release Tenant from the obligation to pay all (or $3,140.00 or 20%) of
unpaid rent (Forgiven Rent); and “CalWorks pays 80% Unpaid Rent (April
2020 to Jan 2021) + 100% Rent (Feb 2021 to June 2021) + Security Deposit
$955.”
      Under the heading EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY, the form
states, “If an eviction action has not already been filed, Landlord may file an
unlawful detainer action for possession pursuant to, and after complying
with, Civil Code § 1946.2(b)(1)(K).”
                                Procedural History
      On July 20, defendants filed a general demurrer to the complaint.
Defendants argued that the Agreement is not a notice from defendants to
plaintiffs of their intent to terminate the tenancy, it does not support the
finding of “just cause” to evict defendants pursuant to the Tenant Protection

                                           3
Act of 2019 (Civ. Code, § 1946.2),1 it violates the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1179.03 et seq.), and it is void as contrary to public policy.
      On July 23, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the demurrer.
      On August 5, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to
amend and dismissed the entire action without prejudice. The court found
“that [t]his case does not meet the requirements of the Tenant Protection Act
(TPA), [Civil Code section] 1946.2. The ‘Coronavirus Rent Forgiveness,
Termination of Tenancy and Possession of Premises Agreement’ attached to
the complaint as Ex. 2 does not constitute a written notice by a tenant
notifying the landlords that the tenant intends to terminate the tenancy.
Accordingly, Ex. 2 does not give rise to an unlawful detainer cause of action
based on subparagraph (b)(1)(K).”

                                  DISCUSSION

      Plaintiff contends the Agreement conforms to the rules set forth in
section 1946.2, subdivision (b)(1)(K) of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, so
as to permit the filing of a complaint for unlawful detainer.
      We disagree.
      “‘The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a pleading by
raising questions of law.’” (Nealy v. County of Orange (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th
594, 599; see Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) “On an appeal from a judgment of
dismissal entered after a demurrer has been sustained, the issue is whether,
assuming the truth of all well pleaded facts and those subject to judicial

      1All statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise
indicated.

                                         4
notice, the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action.”
(Nealy, at p. 600.) “‘[T]he “facts appearing in exhibits attached to the
complaint will also be accepted as true and, if contrary to the allegations in
the pleading, will be given precedence.”’” (Moran v. Prime Healthcare
Management, Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1145-1145.)
      “Our standard of review is well established. ‘When reviewing a
judgment dismissing a complaint after the granting of a demurrer without
leave to amend, courts must assume the truth of the complaint’s properly
pleaded or implied factual allegations. . . . In addition, we give the complaint
a reasonable interpretation, and read it in context. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]
‘We do not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or
conclusions of fact or law.’” (Denny v. Arntz (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 914, 919–
920 (Denny).)
      Our review of the sufficiency of the complaint is de novo, but appellant
bears the burden of demonstrating error. (Denny, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p.
920.) “Issues of statutory construction are questions of law subject to
independent review.” (Ibid.) “The burden of demonstrating a reasonable
probability that the defect can be cured by amendment ‘is squarely on the
plaintiff.’” (McKenney v. Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78.)
      Here, it is undisputed the tenancy is subject to the Tenant Protection
Act of 2019, which prohibits a landlord from terminating a tenancy without
“just cause” for a tenant who “has continuously and lawfully occupied a
residential real property for 12 months. . . .” (§ 1946.2, subd. (a).) To plead a
valid unlawful detainer claim, the complaint must allege that the tenancy
was terminated for “just cause.” (See id., (b)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 1166;
Friedman et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2021)
¶ 8:80.1.)

                                        5
      “Just cause” to terminate a tenancy includes, “When a tenant fails to
deliver possession of residential real property after providing the owner
written notice as provided in Section 1946 of the tenant’s intention to
terminate the hiring of the real property, or makes a written offer to
surrender that is accepted in writing by the landlord, but fails to deliver
possession at the time specified in that written notice as described in
paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure[2].” (§ 1946.2,
subd. (b)(1)(K).)
      Here, the Agreement does not satisfy the pleading requirement
establishing “just cause” under section 1946.2, subdivision (b)(1)(K).
      First, we begin by examining the statutory language, giving it a plain
and commonsense meaning. (Skidgel v. California Unemployment Ins.
Appeals Bd. (2021) 12 Cal.5th 1, 14.) If the statutory language is
unambiguous, then its plain meaning controls. (Ibid.) Section 1946.2,
subdivision (b)(1)(K) unambiguously states that the tenant is to provide “the
owner written notice . . . or makes a written offer to surrender. . . .” The
Agreement does not affirmatively reflect a notice or offer provided by
defendants (the tenants) to plaintiff (the landlord) expressing their intent to
terminate the tenancy. Rather, the Agreement reflects that it was provided
by plaintiff to defendants to terminate the tenancy – i.e., the Agreement
utilizes a form template created by CAR, it expressly states that it is an

      2 Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(5) provides a tenant is guilty of a
misdemeanor: “When the tenant gives written notice as provided in Section
1946 of the Civil Code of the tenant's intention to terminate the hiring of the
real property, or makes a written offer to surrender which is accepted in
writing by the landlord, but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in
that written notice, without the permission of the landlord, or the successor
in estate of the landlord, if applicable.”

                                        6
“addendum” to the lease or rental agreement, it is unclear how much of the
unpaid rent is being waived, and the footer includes plaintiff’s name and
“Ranger Property Management.” Looking at the Agreement as a whole, it is
apparent that it is not a notice from the defendants to the plaintiff reflecting
their intent to vacate.
      Second, assuming arguendo that the Agreement is a notice by
defendants to terminate the tenancy, the written notice must be served “as
provided in Section 1946.” (§ 1946.2, subd. (b)(1)(K).) Section 1946 provides
that service must be made “in the manner prescribed in Section 1162 of the
Code of Civil Procedure[3] or by sending a copy by certified or registered mail
addressed to the other party. . . .” Here, the complaint and the Agreement do
not affirmatively reflect proper and valid service of the notice by defendants
on plaintiff.
      Third, the Agreement states, “Landlord may file an unlawful detainer
complaint pursuant to, and after complying with, Civil Code
§ 1946.2(b)(1)(K).” The words, “after complying with,” indicates a separate
act of compliance with section 1946.2 that is not expressly satisfied by the
Agreement. Also, statutory notices procedures must be strictly adhered to.
(See Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 394-395.) For the
reasons discussed above, the allegations in the complaint and the Agreement
do not reflect strict compliance with section 1946.2.
      The issue, then, is whether plaintiff has established “‘“a reasonable
possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.”’” (Malkoskie v.

      3Notices under the Unlawful Detainer Act must be generally be served
by personal delivery, substituted service, or by post and mail. (Code Civ.
Code, § 1162, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

                                        7
Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968, 974.) Plaintiff has
not met this burden.4

                               DISPOSITION

      The order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed.
Defendants are entitled to recover costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.891(a)(1)-(2).)

                                John R. Zitny
                                   Judge

WE CONCUR:

     Robert A. Knox
 Acting Presiding Judge

     Scott Van Camp
          Judge

      4 We do not reach the issue of whether the Agreement is a valid and
enforceable contract because it is not dispositive to the issue on appeal.

                                       8