Rowland v. Madison Park Apartments

Filed 4/5/06 Rowland v. Madison Park Apartments CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lois A. Smaltz, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Pollock Law Corporation, Elizabeth A. Pollock for Plaintiffs and Appellants Jeanette A. Rowland, Nickolas S. Saba, and Nickolas S. Saba, as guardian ad litem for Nickolas S. Saba, Jr.

Browne Woods & George, Peter W. Ross for Defendants and Respondents Madison Park Apartments, Hung Enterprises, Hung & Tsai Enterprises, Lisa Hung as Trustee of the Sun-Ju Hung and Tina Tomiko Hung Trust dated May 19, 1989, Tyrone Hung, Joe Miller, and Barbara Miller.

__________________________

INTRODUCTION

In an underlying unlawful detainer action, plaintiffs and appellants Jeanette A. Rowland, Nickolas S. Saba, and Nickolas S. Saba, as guardian ad litem for Nickolas S. Saba, Jr. (collectively, Rowland) prevailed against their landlord. Thereafter, Rowland filed this civil action for, among other things, retaliatory eviction and malicious prosecution against defendants and respondents Madison Park Apartments, Hung Enterprises, Hung & Tsai Enterprises, Lisa Hung as Trustee of the Sun-Ju Hung and Tina Tomiko Hung Trust dated May 19, 1989 (the Trust), Tyrone Hung, Joe Miller, and Barbara Miller. A cross-complaint was filed against Rowland for, among other things, breach of lease. A jury found against Rowland on the complaint and cross-complaint.

On appeal, Rowland makes numerous contentions, which can be distilled into the following claims of error: (1) the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication in respondents' favor; (2) the trial court erred in dismissing Rowland's malicious prosecution cause of action; (3) respondents lied about their identities; (4) the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment; (5) damages were improperly awarded to the Trust; (6) the trial court erred in precluding evidence of the unlawful detainer action; (7) respondents are bound by admissions made in the unlawful detainer action; (8) attorney fees and costs should not have been awarded to respondents; and (9) the trial court's rulings have caused a conflict of interest.

We hold that the trial court erred in not taxing the costs that respondents requested, and we remand on that issue only. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Factual background.

A. Rowland enters into a lease agreement.

In February 1996, Nickolas Saba and Jeanette Rowland entered into a lease agreement with Madison Park Apartments. About two years later, their son, Nickolas, Jr., was born. After moving into their apartment, Rowland repeatedly requested maintenance to fix, among other things, water leaks. For example, on March 5, 2000, Rowland made an emergency request to fix a leak in their living room.

B. Madison Park Apartments files an unlawful detainer action.

On March 6, 2000, one day after Rowland made the emergency request, Madison Park Apartments served a 30-day notice to quit. Under the lease, the agreement could be terminated by either party after 30 days' notice. Rowland did not vacate the apartment, and therefore, on April 18, 2000, Madison Park Apartments filed an unlawful detainer action.^[1] The trial court entered judgment in that action in Rowland's favor on June 22, 2000, finding that service of the notice to quit was retaliatory.

While the judgment on the unlawful detainer action matter was pending before the appellate division, Rowland's prior counsel, Alan Johnson, filed, on March 5, 2001, a complaint for damages against respondents. The complaint alleged, among other things, causes of action for wrongful service of notice of termination of tenancy, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory eviction. Rowland dismissed the complaint without prejudice on June 25, 2001. Thereafter, the appellate division affirmed the judgment in the unlawful detainer action, and the remittuter issued on January 15, 2002.

C. Rowland moves out of the apartment.

While the unlawful detainer action was pending, Rowland tendered rent checks from April 2000 through December 2001. Rowland moved out in December 2001, at which time they were given a move out/closing statement in the amount of $13,530.

II. Procedural background.

A. Rowland files the complaint at issue and the Trust cross-complains.

On September 11, 2002, Rowland filed the complaint at issue. It stated the following causes of action: (1) Wrongful service of notice of termination of tenancy, (2) malicious prosecution, (3) retaliatory eviction, (4) trespass, (5) negligent maintenance of premises, (6) retroactive rent abatement, (7) property damage, (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (10) maintenance of a nuisance. Named as defendants were Madison Park Apartments, Hung Enterprises, Hung & Tsai Enterprises, the Trust, Tyrone Hung, Joe Miller, and Barbara Miller.

Madison Park Apartments, Tyrone Hung, and Lisa Hung, as trustee, filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract, account stated, indebitatus assumpsit, and quantum meruit.^[2]

B. Respondents move for summary adjudication of Rowland's complaint.^[3]

Respondents moved for summary adjudication of, among others, the causes of action for wrongful service of notice of termination of tenancy and retaliatory eviction. The trial court granted the motion, agreeing with the respondents' argument that the causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.^[4]

C. Respondents move for judgment on the pleadings.

Respondents moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the malicious prosecution cause of action. They argued that Rowland had not stated a cause of action because there was probable cause to file the unlawful detainer action. The trial court granted the motion and held that the fact Rowland successfully defended the unlawful detainer action did not show a lack of probable cause in bringing the action.

D. Trial.

The matter then proceeded to trial by a jury. Before trial, the court repeatedly ordered the parties to discuss who were the real parties in interest. The parties finally stipulated that Madison Park Apartments is the fictitious business name used by the owners of the rental property at issue;^[5] that Hung & Tsai Enterprises, a partnership owned 25 percent by the Tsais and 75 percent by the Trust, owned the property from February 1996 to December 12, 2001; that on December 12, 2001, ownership of the property was transferred from Hung & Tsai Enterprises to the Trust as sole owner; and that â€