Real Property Law
California Case Summary Update: February 2025 Real Property Case Summaries
February 2025
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Helping Attorneys Get Excellent Results
Publisher: California Case Summaries™:
California Case Summaries™: the fast and easy way to always know the new cases in your practice areas to get a competitive advantage and win more cases.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.:
Business, employment, insurance, probate, real property and torts cases. To schedule, contact one of Monty’s case managers Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.
Trial Mentoring™: Trial training and preparation. Email Monty at: monty@montymcintyre.com.
Trial Alchemy™: Interviews of outstanding plaintiff and defense lawyers and civil trial judges who are ABOTA members about what works, and what doesn’t work in jury trials. Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.
California Case Summaries™: California attorneys can win more cases by always knowing the new published civil in their practice areas. California Case Summaries™ makes this easy by providing one-paragraph case summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published by California courts in monthly issues, quarterly issues, annual issues, or all three. Individual Attorney and Law Firm Unlimited (lets the firm send summaries to every lawyer) subscriptions are available.To subscribe, click here.
Here are the case summaries from last month:
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Landlord-Tenant
Baca v. Kuang (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 84296: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial, awarding plaintiff landlord possession of the leased premises in her unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff had a month-to-month tenancy with defendant tenant. Plaintiff issued a 30-day notice to terminate the tenancy. Several days after the notice expired, defendant tendered a rent check to plaintiff, which she deposited that same day and never refunded. The next day, plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant, arguing that he was unlawfully holding over. While the action was pending, defendant tendered payment of rent and common area maintenance charges to plaintiff pursuant to invoices sent by her management company for three additional months, which she deposited and never refunded. The trial court concluded that despite plaintiff’s acceptance of these payments, she did not consent to defendant’s continued possession based on the terms of their lease, ruling that Civil Code section 1945—which establishes a presumption of renewal whenever a landlord accepts rent from a tenant after the expiration of a lease—did not apply. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that section 1945 applied because plaintiff accepted rent from defendant multiple times after his lease had expired and, in light of this presumption, plaintiff consented to a month-to-month tenancy based on the undisputed facts and the terms of the lease. (C.A. 1st, January 13, 2025.)
Fillmore Center Associates, LP v. Lewis (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5364725: The Appellate Division of the San Francisco Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action. Defendant’s motion argued that plaintiff’s three-day notice to pay rent or quit was Defective because it failed to comply with the notice required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2. The day before the motion hearing the trial court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion. Later that day after the tentative ruling, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal without prejudice. The trial court heard the motion the following day. A plaintiff may not dismiss an action without prejudice after an adverse tentative summary judgment ruling has been announced. (Appellate Division of the San Francisco Superior Court, January 30, 2025.)
Real Property
JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 23541: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to overturn respondent’s decision granting a conditional use permit (CUP) for the cultivation of cannabis where a private easement over a neighbor’s land was the only access to the land subject to the CUP. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and reversed its order because under federal law cannabis is illegal in California and everywhere else in the United States. The servient tenant’s objection on this ground was sufficient to defeat the CUP. (C.A. 2nd, opinion after rehearing, January 3, 2025.)
Trial Alchemy™
Check out Monty’s podcast Trial Alchemy ™ where he interviews outstanding plaintiff and defendant civil trial lawyers who are members of the American Board of Trial Advocates.
This podcast is a great way for civil trial lawyers, whether they’ve tried no cases or many cases, to learn from jury trial experts.
To listen to the podcast on Spotify, click here.
To listen to the podcast on Apple, click here.
To watch and listen to the podcast on YouTube, click here.