Kim Klausner, Trustee Under The Kim Klausner Living Trust, Dated September 27, 2011 v. Aimee Tsao, Lorin Tsao, and Does 1-10, inclusive
Published: Sep. 25, 2020 | Result Date: Jul. 24, 2020 | Filing Date: Oct. 24, 2019 |Case number: CUD-19-666075 Summary Judgment – Defense
Judge
Court
San Francisco County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Jaimie B. Bombard
(Nixon Peabody)
Defendant
Stephen L. Collier
(Tenderloin Housing Clinic)
Raquel Fox
(Tenderloin Housing Clinic)
Facts
Plaintiff Kim Klausner, Trustee under The Kim Klausner Living Trust Dated September 27, 2011 owns real property in San Francisco, CA. Plaintiff filed an action against defendants Aimee Tsao and Lorin Tsao for unlawful detainer. Defendants were plaintiff's long-time tenants and in possession of the property through a valid lease agreement. Plaintiff's friend James Van Buskirk was also another long-time tenant. In her trust, plaintiff granted her friend a lifetime tenancy for monthly rent that was half the market rate. However, plaintiff sought to take the property off the rental market under the Ellis Act. Plaintiff allowed her friend to live on the property rent free as long as he paid utilities. However, on October 16, 2018, plaintiff served defendants with a notice of termination of tenancy. This notice also included relocation payments as required by Rent Ordinance Section 37.9A. Defendants claimed additional relocation expenses and extension of the date of withdrawal of the premises from the rental market. Defendants did not vacate the property and continued to hold over the property.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants unlawfully held over her property. Plaintiff contended that she filed all required written notices to terminate the tenancy lawfully and complied with relocation payment pursuant to Rent Ordinance Section 37.9A.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions. Defendants contended that because plaintiff's friend paid rent for half the market price under the trust, plaintiff did not withdraw all accommodations from the rental market as required under the Ellis Act and that plaintiff was trying to circumvent the Ellis Act.
Result
The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not have a bona fide intent to withdraw all the property's accommodations from the rental market.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390