California Case Summary Update: March 2026 Real Property Case Summaries

February 2025

By: Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Helping Attorneys Get Excellent Results

Publisher: California Case Summaries™: Know More. Win More.
Mediator 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.    
Trial Alchemy™: Learn from Civil Jury Trial Experts. Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.

California Case Summaries™: Know the New Law

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 with 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.

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Environment

The Committee for Tiburon LLC v. Town of Tiburon (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 266411: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting a writ petition challenging defendant’s approval of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its general plan update. The trial court granted plaintiff’s writ petition on the ground that defendant’s program EIR for its general plan 2040 was inadequate because it failed to analyze the site-specific environmental impacts of potential housing development on “Site H,” one of 17 sites identified in the general plan’s housing element that would accommodate plaintiff’s projected regional housing needs of 639 units plus a buffer of 277 units (916 total units), even though no project had been proposed for Site H.  The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that a program EIR for a general plan update need not include site-specific environmental analysis for a housing-element site when no housing project has been proposed, because the absence of project details makes such analysis premature and appropriately deferred to later, project-level CEQA review. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions to deny the portion of the writ challenging the EIR’s adequacy, and to address (among other issues) whether subsequent rezoning would be exempt under recent CEQA amendments. (C.A. 1st, February 2, 2026.)

Landlord-Tenant

Ashirwad, LLC v. Bradbury (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 497721: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for defendants, following a bench trial, in plaintiff landlord’s action alleging that defendants owed rent on a salon after the lease expired because they made a payment to plaintiff that created a month-to-month tenancy under Civil Code section 1945. Defendant Jeannette Bradbury operated a salon on the premises. She retired in February 2020, one month before her lease ended. She tried to help the landlord find a replacement tenant. On March 19, 2020, shortly before the lease expired, the State of California issued an order for people to stay in their residence.  One day before the lease expired, defendants paid plaintiff $4,179, the equivalent of one month’s rent.  Approximately three months later, they paid plaintiff an additional $2,100. Defendants made no other payments and the parties never discussed whether the tenancy would continue on a month-to-month basis. When the defendants returned the keys to the property months later, plaintiff demanded unpaid rent, asserting that under Civil Code section 1945 their $4,179 payment in March 2020 created a month-to-month tenancy. The trial court found that defendants’ rebutted Civil Code section 1945’s presumption of a month-to-month tenancy and therefore no contract existed after the written lease expired. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to show legal error based upon the record (there was no reporter’s transcript), and the trial court properly concluded section 1945’s presumption was rebutted. (C.A. 4th, filed January 29, 2026, published February 23, 2026.)

Gerard v. Cuevas (2026) _ Cal.App.5th Supp. _ , 2025 WL 4110702: The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court reversed the trial court’s terminating sanction striking defendant’s answer, followed by a prove-up hearing and entry of a default judgment awarding plaintiff possession and rent/holdover damages against defendant because defendant failed to appear in person for trial after the trial court gave her roughly 91 minutes’ notice. Plaintiff untimely served defendant, 4 days before the trial, with a notice to appear for trial under Code Civ. Proc., § 1987(b), which did not give defendant the requisite 10-day statutory notice. After defendant failed to personally appear at the trial, the trial court ordered defendant to personally attend the trial, giving her only 91 minutes’ notice. The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion by retroactively shortening the statutory notice period under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987, and by imposing an unauthorized and manifestly excessive terminating sanction (striking the answer) for failure to comply with the untimely notice and the same-day appearance order. The judgment was reversed and the trial court was directed to set aside the order striking the answer.  (Appellate Division of  the Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed November 21, 2025, published February 5, 2026.)

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Helping Lawyers Get Excellent Results
-Settling or Deciding Cases or Issues: Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services. Employment, Torts, Business, Real Property, Insurance and Probate.
ADR Services Case Managers: Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600 and Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com,  (619) 233-1323
-Working Up Cases: California Case Summaries™: Know the New Law

-Trying Cases: Trial Mentoring with Monty McIntyre; Trial Alchemy™ Podcast on Spotify, Apple, YouTube & Monty’s web: Learn from Jury Trial Experts
ABOTA member since 1995 | The Best Lawyers in America since 2012  
Past President: San Diego County Bar Assn. | Past President: San Diego ABOTA Chapter
To Contact Monty McIntyre: Phone: (619) 990-4312; Email: monty@montymcintyre.com