Chacon v. Litke
In these consolidated appeals, defendants Edward Litke and the Edward Litke Revocable Trust of 1995 (Litke) appeal from a judgment and postjudgment order of the San Francisco Superior Court in a wrongful eviction action in favor of plaintiffs Jorge Chacon, Sr., Gilma Chacon and their adult children, Jorge Chacon, Jr., Amilcar Chacon, and Tania Chacon (Chacons).[1] Following a bench trial, the court awarded the Chacons damages and attorney fees under the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Ordinance), ruling that Litke violated the Ordinance when, after bringing a successful unlawful detainer action against the Chacons so that he might effect repairs under the Ordinance, San Francisco Administrative Code section 37.9, subdivision (a)(11), [2] Litke wrongfully recovered permanent possession by refusing to allow the Chacons to return to the apartment after the expiration of 90 days. Litke contends, among other things, that the court erred in rejecting his claims that: (1) the Ordinance allows a right of reoccupation only to those tenants who temporarily vacate after notice from the landlord and not to tenants who leave only after the landlord brings a successful unlawful detainer action against them; (2) Litke recovered permanent possession of the premises by a valid judgment in the unlawful detainer action against the Chacons and that judgment was res judicata and collateral estoppel as to the Chacons lawsuit; (3) a stipulation between the parties following the successful unlawful detainer action constituted a surrender of the lease by the Chacons, forfeiting any right to reoccupy the premises; (4) as a matter of law, Litkes alleged wrongful actions were absolutely privileged under the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, 47, subd. (b)); and (5) the court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings as to three of Litkes affirmative defenses. Litke also challenges the attorney fee award as excessive. Court shall affirm the judgment in its entirety.
Comments on Chacon v. Litke