Mavromatis v. German

Filed 4/24/06 Mavromatis v. German CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977 .

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Following a relative move-in eviction, tenants discovered that the relative lived in the rental unit for less than a year before the landlord resold the property. Tenants sued under the San Francisco Residential Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, alleging that the landlord acted in bad faith and in retaliation for complaints they had made about the condition of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the landlord. We affirm.

Background

In August 2002, defendant Sofia German (Landlord) purchased property on 39th Avenue in San Francisco (Property). At the time, Leonidas and Julie Mavromatis (Tenants) were renting a downstairs rental unit subject to the San Francisco Residential Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Ordinance). (S.F. Admin. Code, ch. 37.) Landlord planned that income from a family day care business in the Property would finance her house payments.

In support of her motion for summary judgment, Landlord averred that when she purchased the Property, she intended to evict Tenants so her mother, defendant Klavdiya German, could move into the house and help run the family day care. Landlord asked her realtor about relative move-in rules and on September 10, 2002 the realtor faxed her relevant provisions of the Ordinance.

About a month after her purchase, Landlord received a letter from Tenants complaining of problems with mold, a leaky ceiling, and nonfunctioning exhaust fans. This letter was the first complaint Landlord received from Tenants about the premises. Tenants had denied any problems with the unit in a July 2002 rental questionnaire.

In October 2002, Landlord served Tenants with a 30-day eviction notice. Tenants vacated the Property in November. Klavdiya German moved into the rental unit within three months and lived there as her principal place of residence. In support of the summary judgment motion, Klavdiya German averred that she intended to live at the Property indefinitely.

Financial problems arose when Landlord's day care license was suspended effective May 13, 2003. Landlord contested the suspension unsuccessfully and the Department of Social Services revoked the license in a proposed decision in July, which became final in August.

Without the income from the day care, Landlord could no longer make the payments on the Property, and she sold it in October. During escrow, Landlord gave the buyers a Vacant Unit Disclosure form, which set forth the legal ground for Tenants' eviction. (S.F. Admin. Code, § 37.10A(h).) She also provided and recorded a Notice of Constraints on Real Property, which described tenants' rights following relative move-in evictions. (S.F. Admin. Code, § 37.9B.) Eric and Yanna Tong purchased the Property. They would not have purchased the Property if Tenants were living in the downstairs unit. Landlord and her mother moved to a one-bedroom apartment that housed three adults and one teenager.

In November, Tenants learned for the first time that Landlord's mother was no longer living in the rental unit and that the Property had been sold. They contacted Landlord, who confirmed these developments in a December letter and explained that she had sold the Property because she had lost her day care license and could no longer pay the mortgage. On May 11, 2004, Tenants sued Landlord and her mother for violation of the Ordinance, retaliatory eviction, and various other causes of action.

The court granted summary judgment to Landlord.[1] It ruled that Landlord had submitted uncontroverted evidence (1) that she intended to evict Tenants so her mother could move into the unit before Tenants ever complained about the conditions in the unit; (2) that the mother moved into the rental unit within three months of Tenants' departure and intended to reside there indefinitely; and (3) that Landlord unexpectedly lost her day care license, could no longer afford the house payments, and sold the Property after disclosing to the new buyers that there were restrictions on renting Tenants' former rental unit.

Discussion

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate â€