Blue Horizon Property Management Company vs Lana Perfect

Case Number

24CV00263

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 03/04/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Blue Horizon Property Management Company v. Lana Perfect                       

Case No. 24CV00263          

Hearing Date: March 4, 2024                                     

HEARING:              Defendant Lana Perfect’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Blue Horizon Property Management Company: James Cole

                        For Defendant Lana Perfect: Karen K. Peabody, Alexander Entrekin

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Background:

This action was commenced on January 18, 2024, by the filing of the complaint for unlawful detainer by Blue Horizon Property Management Company (“Plaintiff”) against Lana Perfect (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges that defendant has been renting premises located at 1711 De La Vina Street, Unit B, Santa Barbara, within the city limits of Santa Barbara, since August 6, 2022, pursuant to a month-to-month lease, with monthly rent of $1,925.00. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 6.) The tenancy is subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Defendant was served with a notice of termination of tenancy described as: “At-fault just cause, further described as: multiple instances of nuisance regarding other tenants and damage to the property.” (Id. at ¶ 9 & Exh. 2.)

On February 2, 2024, defendant filed the present general demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e)(f), arguing that the complaint “fails to state in full the facts and circumstances constituting the at-fault just cause for termination as required pursuant to Civil Code section 1946.2, subd. (b)(1)(C) and Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.50.040, subd. (A), which is a complete defense to any unlawful detainer action.” Defendant also argues that “the Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action . . . because the Complaint fails to allege that Plaintiff offered Defendant a one-year lease in compliance with Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.40.010, which is a complete defense in any legal action brought by the landlord to recover possession of the rental unit.”

Plaintiff has not filed opposition to the demurrer.

Analysis:

            Standard on Demurrer

“[A] court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

A demurrer searches for defects in the allegations of the pleading. “A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.” (Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879.)

“Although a general demurrer does not ordinarily reach affirmative defenses, it “ ‘will lie where the complaint ‘ “has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.” ’ ” [Citations.] “ ‘Thus, a demurrer based on an affirmative defense will be sustained only where the face of the complaint discloses that the action is necessarily barred by the defense.’ [Citations.]” (Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 726.)

“It has long been recognized that the unlawful detainer statutes are to be strictly construed and that relief not statutorily authorized may not be given due to the summary nature of the proceedings. The statutory requirements in such proceedings must be followed strictly, otherwise a landlord’s remedy is an ordinary suit for breach of contract with all the delays that remedy normally involves and without restitution of the demised property.” (WDT-Winchester v. Nilsson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 516, 526.)

When not in conflict with state law, local legislative bodies may pass ordinances that give rise to “a substantive ground of defense in unlawful detainer proceedings.” (Birkenfeld v. City of Berkely (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 148-149.)

Allegations, on the face of the complaint, adequately show that the subject property is located in the city of Santa Barbara and is subject to the Municipal Code.

            At-Fault Notice of Termination of Tenancy

Defendant argues that the notice of termination of tenancy is defective because it does not fully disclose in full all the facts and circumstances constituting just cause for terminating defendant’s tenancy.

“The owner of a rental unit shall not terminate the tenancy of a qualified tenant unless the owner is able to prove just cause, which must be stated in full in the notice of termination.” (Santa Barbara Muni. Code, § 26.50.010, subd. (A).

Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.50.040 subdivision (A), relating to just cause evictions, provides: “The written notice to terminate tenancy shall state in full the facts and circumstances constituting the at-fault just cause or no-fault just cause for termination.”

Here, as stated above, the notice simply stated: “At-fault just cause, further described as: multiple instances of nuisance regarding other tenants and damage to the property.”

The at-fault description is insufficient because it does not “state in full the facts and circumstances constituting the at-fault just cause.” The notice needs to describe what the nuisances were and what the property damage consisted of.

Because the notice is defective, the demurrer will be sustained.

           

Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.40.010     

Defendant’s second argument in support of her demurrer is that the complaint does not allege compliance with Santa Barbara Municipal Code chapter 26.40.

Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.40.010, subdivision (A), requires: “If a tenant or prospective tenant wishes to rent a rental unit from a landlord and if the landlord wishes to rent the rental unit to the tenant or prospective tenant, the landlord must offer to the tenant or prospective tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of one year. The offer must be made in writing. The landlord’s signing of a lease which has a minimum term of one year shall be considered an offer in writing.” “The landlord shall have the burden of proving that the lease offer was made to the tenant.” (Id. at subd. (C).)

“If both the landlord and the tenant wish to continue the rental relationship, upon the expiration of the initial written lease which has a minimum term of one year, a lease shall be offered again in accordance with the procedures of this section:

“1.     Leases with a term of one year shall be offered annually.

“2.     Leases with a term longer than one year shall be renewable at the expiration of each lease period for a minimum term of one year.

“3.     A landlord shall offer annually a written lease with a minimum term of one year to a tenant who rejected an initial offer of a written lease with a minimum term of one year but who has rented a unit from the landlord for a period of at least twelve months.” (Santa Barbara Mun. Code, § 26.40.010, subd. (E).)

Failure of the landlord to comply with the requirement of offering the tenant a lease with a one-year minimum term, provides the tenant with a “defense in any legal action brought by the landlord to recover possession of the rental unit” for a period of one-year from the date of the failure of the landlord to offer the one-year minimum term lease. (Santa Barbara Mun. Code, § 26.40.020, subd. (A).)

Because the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a one-year minimum lease was timely offered to defendant, or that plaintiff is exempt from the requirement, it is an essential element of the cause of action for unlawful detainer. “To establish that a cause of action has been adequately pled, a plaintiff must demonstrate he or she has alleged ‘facts sufficient to establish every element of that cause of action.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 280, 286.)

Plaintiff has provided proof that on June 30, 2022, defendant rejected plaintiff’s offer of a written one-year lease for the premises. (Complaint, Exh. 1, p. 14.) It appears to have been electronically signed by defendant on August 22, 2022. The rejection letter states: “I understand that my landlord is not required to offer me a one-year lease again until one year from today.”

While the one-year lease rejection is vague and ambiguous as to whether the one-year renewal was due on June 30, 2023, or August 22, 2023, and there is no evidence or allegation that a one-year lease was offered on either of those dates, both of which dates were before October 3, 2023, notice of termination of tenancy. If plaintiff failed to timely offer defendant a one-year lease, it operates as a defense for one-year from the failure to do so. Because plaintiff has not pled compliance, or legal excuse from compliance, the demurrer on this ground will be sustained.

While the failure of plaintiff to allege a renewed offer of a one-year lease is potentially capable of amendment to state a cause of action, the defect in the notice of termination of tenancy is not. Because the notice is defective, the demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend.