Mr. Landlord v. Mr. Tenant: Eviction Case Involving Illegal Property Conversion and Lease Voidance: RSO Involvement

On October 4, 2019, Mr. Landlord filed a complaint to evict Mr. Tenant from a property on 42nd Street in Los Angeles. The issue was that Mr. Tenant didn’t follow a three-day notice about making changes to the property or allowing repairs. Mr. Tenant argued that the property wasn’t legally registered and that Mr. Landlord violated the law by not registering it.

Mr. Tenant filed a motion arguing the property was illegal and the lease invalid due to lack of registration, supported by evidence from HCIDLA. Mr. Landlord argued the motion was late but defended eviction. The court ruled in Mr. Tenant’s favor, stating the lease was invalid due to non-registration.

Mr. Landlord appealed. The appeal court stated:

There are three problems with Mr. Landlord's argument. First, he didn’t argue in court that the lease was changed. Second, he didn’t show proof that rent wasn’t asked for during the time he mentioned. Third, the court didn’t show that the lease was changed, and the original terms still apply.

Mr. Landlord argues the court made a mistake by not letting him take back the property because the lease was illegal. However, the court actually found the property was an illegally converted garage, built without permits, and not properly registered. The court ruled that because the property was illegal, the lease was also invalid, so Mr. Landlord couldn’t evict Mr. Tenant.

Mr. Landlord's worry that the court's decision takes away his property is not valid. The HCIDLA told Mr. Landlord in a letter that he can still evict Mr. Tenant by following LARSO's procedure. This includes filing a Declaration of Intent to Evict, giving Mr. Tenant a notice, and paying relocation benefits.

(Yanez v. Vasquez (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 15 [280 Cal.Rptr.3d 569].)